[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: MDB library naming conflict

What about just memorydb or memdb?

Kind Regards,

Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.

T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
E ghenry@suretec.co.uk

Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).


Suretec Systems is a limited company registered in Scotland. Registered
number: SC258005. Registered office: 24 Cormack Park, Rothienorman, Inverurie,
Aberdeenshire, AB51 8GL.

Subject to disclaimer at http://www.suretecgroup.com/disclaimer.html

Do you know we have our own VoIP provider called SureVoIP? See

On 1 Dec 2012, at 19:21, Hallvard Breien Furuseth
<h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> wrote:

> Howard Chu writes:
>> This is basically a continuation of this thread
>> http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/201111/msg00063.html
>> I think liblmdb for the name of the library file is fine. Do we need to
>> change any other instances of "mdb" as well, or can we just let them slide?
> Need, no, but my vote is for changing it throughout.  Failing that,
> changing the user-visible stuff.  File extensions, program names,
> documentation.
> For consistency, and taking the opportunity to escape the Goolge(mdb)
> hits for Microsoft's MDB.  "back-mdb" doesn't hit those, but "database
> mdb" and the .mdb file extension do.
> Also, what is it going to be called now?  It now seems to be the
> Lightning mdb -- as opposed to the Microsoft mdb?  Yet an mdb isn't some
> well-established term, even if we've talked about it a lot lately.  So
> I'm not exactly sure what the stand-alone name "mdb" is needed for at
> this point.  Unless that can be fixed by just phrasing things a bit
> differenlty than I just did.
> --
> Hallvard