FDB (fast db?) - off the top of my head, seems unique enough
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Howard Chu hyc@symas.com wrote:
What's in a name... Apparently "MDB" is already a well-known suffix for Microsoft Access database files. "mdb" is also the name of a debugger tool in Solaris. To avoid confusion with those unrelated items, it might be a good idea to rename our MDB to something else. Now, before the next OpenLDAP release is published. Comments?
Brett @Google wrote:
FDB (fast db?) - off the top of my head, seems unique enough
Hm, but a bit too generic. Every DB vendor claims their DB is fast.
Your reply skipped over the underlying question - do we even need to worry about this and pick a new name at all? I'm guessing your answer is yes, since you've suggested a new name.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com mailto:hyc@symas.com> wrote:
What's in a name... Apparently "MDB" is already a well-known suffix for Microsoft Access database files. "mdb" is also the name of a debugger tool in Solaris. To avoid confusion with those unrelated items, it might be a good idea to rename our MDB to something else. Now, before the next OpenLDAP release is published. Comments?-- *The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.*
Albert Einstein*
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Howard Chu hyc@symas.com wrote:
Brett @Google wrote:
FDB (fast db?) - off the top of my head, seems unique enough
Hm, but a bit too generic. Every DB vendor claims their DB is fast.
Your reply skipped over the underlying question - do we even need to worry about this and pick a new name at all? I'm guessing your answer is yes, since you've suggested a new name.
Not necessarily yes. If the name change is difficult for you, then i lean more toward no, if simple then more towards yes.
Sorry for the "fuzzy" logic :P, but :
My thoughts for no:
1. The name will affect only the name of the backend module, which is logically a unit under the scope of openldap (and all backends share a prefix), it can't exist by itself.
2. Under the context / aegis of openldap, mdb indicates the function within openldap
My thoughts for yes :
1. If the backend becomes popular or leading feature in and by itself, you will want to avoid collisions with other pseudonyms in the operating system / software domain.
2. If you really want to make a name change, even only a little bit, it is best to bite the bullet and change it now, before people start building dependencies upon it.
3. If sometime later the name begins to offend you, by then it will be difficult or impossible to change, as people will build binary packages etc., against it.
4. If it is a small amount of work, you might as well do it.
Cheers Brett
Brett @Google wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com mailto:hyc@symas.com> wrote:
Brett @Google wrote: FDB (fast db?) - off the top of my head, seems unique enough Hm, but a bit too generic. Every DB vendor claims their DB is fast. Your reply skipped over the underlying question - do we even need to worry about this and pick a new name at all? I'm guessing your answer is yes, since you've suggested a new name.Not necessarily yes. If the name change is difficult for you, then i lean more toward no, if simple then more towards yes.
I think at this point a couple renames in git is pretty trivial to accomplish.
Sorry for the "fuzzy" logic :P, but :
My thoughts for no:
- The name will affect only the name of the backend module, which is
logically a unit under the scope of openldap (and all backends share a prefix), it can't exist by itself.
This point is false; libmdb builds on its own and is intended for use in more than just OpenLDAP. (I already spelled this out in my LDAPCon presentation...) I've ported SQLite to use it, for example, and I will be porting it to Cyrus SASL (sasldb), Heimdal, and various other miscellaneous stuff that comes along. The API is fully documented in Doxygen, and part of the reason I went to that trouble was to ensure that other programmers could use it easily.
- Under the context / aegis of openldap, mdb indicates the function within
openldap
My thoughts for yes :
- If the backend becomes popular or leading feature in and by itself, you
will want to avoid collisions with other pseudonyms in the operating system / software domain.
- If you really want to make a name change, even only a little bit, it is
best to bite the bullet and change it now, before people start building dependencies upon it.
Yes.
- If sometime later the name begins to offend you, by then it will be
difficult or impossible to change, as people will build binary packages etc., against it.
Yes.
- If it is a small amount of work, you might as well do it.
Yeah, sounds about right.
At this point, for lack of a better idea, I think "mmdb" may be different enough to distinguish it and also lend some more meaning to the name.
On 11/14/2011 09:20 AM, Howard Chu wrote:
- If it is a small amount of work, you might as well do it.
Yeah, sounds about right.
At this point, for lack of a better idea, I think "mmdb" may be different enough to distinguish it and also lend some more meaning to the name.
This thread was too quick for me to catch up :) I think mmdb sounds fine.
p.
openldap-technical@openldap.org
-
Brett ＠Google -
Howard Chu -
Pierangelo Masarati