> I'd probably initially do it for 3.x, as 2.x is basically in feature > freeze, I believe. Are you 2.x based?
Yes, I am, for it was the only stable version when the project was started. And I'd prefer to stay on it since version 3 is too young, its docs are not complete (AFAIK). So, if possible, I'd like version 2.x to be also modified. After all, this improvement can be thought of as a kind of SQL bug fix. > So, you're expected to provide a SQL front end to a legacy database, > without dumping the old database, and keep the two in sync, but allow > people to create arbitrary tables in the SQL frontend that will be synced > to the legacy backend? Exactly so. > Don't want much, do they:) They have a lot of legacy client software which uses the legacy db API. It was a primary requirement to provide coexistance for SQL and non-SQL environments. Regards, Alex
