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

Re: MDB library naming conflict

Gavin Henry wrote:
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

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,

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.


  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/