On Nov 26, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Gisle Aas <gi...@activestate.com> wrote:
> I do find the "db:" prefix ugly. If you want users to see these strings I > would think they find this prefix to be clutter too. Yeah. But I would thin, that if it *was* a standard, there would be just one scheme defined. That’s a guess, though. Maybe no one would care, and would not mind an unlimited number of new schemes (one for every db engine)? I don’t know. > You seem to be alone in calling it "pg:". For the other examples out there I > see "postgresql:" or "postgres:". Should all different ways be allowed and > lead to the same thing? I've seen both "mysql:" and "mysql2:". What about > "mariadb:"? Yeah, I was going to add "postgres" and "postgresql" subclasses. Maybe "pgsql", too, I dunno. Never seen "mysql2"; what’s that? Maria is the same as MySQL, really; I should add it, though, and have it inherit from db:mysql, just as vertica currently inherits from db:pg. > For sqlite:-URLs people seem to disagree on how to specify relative vs > absolute path names. Really? To me, an absolute path starts with "/". Anything else is relative. > I wish there actually was _a_ standard for this stuff. :-) I’m planning to write it up as a blog post and talk to some other communities about it. Thanks, David
