From: Austin Bingham <abingham@arlut.utexas.edu>
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. So, while "database" gives a pretty good clue as to the library's purpose, "bdbc" or "dba" are less informative. As the list of boost libraries grows, I think it behooves us to avoid obfuscation and, thus, confusion.
Upon reflection, I think you're right. In which case I change my vote to "database_access". This really isn't too long compared to existing Boost libraries (e.g., "compressed_pair", "special_functions", "program_options") and it gives a clearer picture of what the library is about. - James Jones Administrative Data Mgmt. Webmaster 375 Raritan Center Pkwy, Suite A Data Architect Edison, NJ 08837