What about just memorydb or memdb? -- Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1224 279484 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 824887 E ghe...@suretec.co.uk Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/ Suretec Systems is a limited company registered in Scotland. Registered number: SC258005. Registered office: 24 Cormack Park, Rothienorman, Inverurie, Aberdeenshire, AB51 8GL. Subject to disclaimer at http://www.suretecgroup.com/disclaimer.html Do you know we have our own VoIP provider called SureVoIP? See http://www.surevoip.co.uk On 1 Dec 2012, at 19:21, Hallvard Breien Furuseth <h.b.furus...@usit.uio.no> wrote: > Howard Chu writes: >> This is basically a continuation of this thread >> http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/201111/msg00063.html >> >> I think liblmdb for the name of the library file is fine. Do we need to >> change any other instances of "mdb" as well, or can we just let them slide? > > Need, no, but my vote is for changing it throughout. Failing that, > changing the user-visible stuff. File extensions, program names, > documentation. > > For consistency, and taking the opportunity to escape the Goolge(mdb) > hits for Microsoft's MDB. "back-mdb" doesn't hit those, but "database > mdb" and the .mdb file extension do. > > Also, what is it going to be called now? It now seems to be the > Lightning mdb -- as opposed to the Microsoft mdb? Yet an mdb isn't some > well-established term, even if we've talked about it a lot lately. So > I'm not exactly sure what the stand-alone name "mdb" is needed for at > this point. Unless that can be fixed by just phrasing things a bit > differenlty than I just did. > > -- > Hallvard >
