If the NoSQL moniker continues to gain traction, then DBIx.NoSQL
should probably not even refer to a specific implementation. In response
to my recent post in the Google Groups NoSQL discussion, someone suggested
that DBIx.NoSQL should be reserved as an interface and implementations
named underneath. For example, my implementation would logically be
DBIx.noSQL.rdb, which accurately describes using an NoSQL implementation
using rdb.
Given a realistic timeline, I would be happy to coordinate the effort of
writing such an interface. That project sounds exciting, but requires a
bit of effort to engage the appropriate experts.
I assume the maintainers who read this email have the best and broadest
perspective about whether this approach makes sense. I look forward to
your response.
Thanks again!
Sincerely,
Jim Schueler - TQISJIM
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, Jim Schueler wrote:
Hello.
I am looking for a name for a module I've spent the last couple months
writing. Originally, it was a replacement for something I wrote and used for
a long time, BerkeleyDB::Lite. More work than I expected and this project
took on a life of its own.
http://pl2sql.tqis.com/
Is there a way to find out if an existing module is still under development?
DBIx.NoSQL seems to still be in Beta and I have been unable to contact its
author. Quite a number of people whom I've talked to have suggested that
DBIx.NoSQL would be the best name, if something can be worked out.
Otherwise, I've been struggling for some time trying to think of an
alternative. The one I dislike the least is DBIx.Storable.NoSQL because I
think of this module as an RDB equivalent of the Storable module.
In summary... help!
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Jim Schueler - TQISJIM
