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

Re: MDB library naming conflict

--On Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:05 PM +0100 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

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.

I don't see the point here as renaming MDB into something new like lightning db or memory db. I see the point as simply avoiding conflicts. I would keep back-mdb, I would keep the mdb extension. The library clash issue has been fixed by renaming it to liblmdb. For Kurt's point, perhaps <lmdb/mdb.h>, so that the directory resembles the library name.



Quanah Gibson-Mount
Sr. Member of Technical Staff
Zimbra, Inc
A Division of VMware, Inc.
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration