Paul A Bristow wrote:
Whatever we pick, I think we should avoid any name that isn't pretty immediately clear on a quick scan. With a few exceptions (i.e. Spirit), you can quickly tell what a boost library does based solely on it's name.
Right, I think Boost.DatabaseAccess is pretty clear.
But rather long :-(
Not when abbreviated to dba.
How about Boost.DataAccess and boost::dataaccess?
No, I think the 'base' is important here. DataAccess might include xml files, but the library doesn't do that.
Or even my original suggestion Boost.Access and boost::access?
I suggested it somewhat mischeviously, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. One might even access Microsoft Access (TM) with it?
Even less context then DataAccess. Access leaves me thinking, Access to what? I thing database needs to be spelled out somewhere in the name otherwise we've lost something. If I were getting picky I'd want to see the word 'Relational' in there b/c the library can't access object databases. Jeff