On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:01:59AM +0000, Tim Bunce wrote:
> I can't see any good reason for it to be in the SQL:: category. It's
> actually hiding SQL from the user. If I was looking for a module that
> let me avoid SQL when using the DBI then I wouldn't look in the SQL::
> category.
>
> The DBIx:: category is where most DBI extensions live and this is certainly
> a DBI extension.
>
> How about DBIx::Abstract, DBIx::AbstractSQL, etc?
Sounds good to me. Somehow I completely overlooked the DBIx category. Wow,
that's so much better. When I first started work on it I named it Shashou
("abstraction" in Japanese), when it came time to give it a real name I
couldn't find a place in the tree that I was happy with. The DBI tree was
clearly wrong, but the SQL tree wasn't much better...
--
Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://anime.mikomi.org/ - Community Anime Reviews
Membership de l'email: Seikihyougen
And the moral of this message is...
"...[Linux's] capacity to talk via any medium except smoke signals."
(By Dr. Greg Wettstein, Roger Maris Cancer Center)
