Hello Attila,<br><br>Finally getting around to looking at cl-rdbms, I found it to be very well thought out -- its syntax probably supports more different constructs than s-sql does at this point. Its syntax is probably also quite a bit more thought out. If, a month ago, you had had some minimal documentation, I&#39;d probably have realized this earlier, heh. Also, one of the reasons I stuck to Postgres-specificness is that I don&#39;t know enough about other databases, and do not have the time, to write stuff in a multi-backend way. Maybe the cl-rdbms code can help there (though it&#39;s also still only tested on pg). So now the burning question presents itself -- do we merge?
<br><br>I haven&#39;t played with cl-rdbms enough to know how much I like it. Its DAO (records) approach seems more primitive than Postmodern&#39;s. How stable are the various parts of the library? Is anybody planning to put some effort into documentation anytime soon?
<br><br>I guess what it boils down to is: A) I&#39;m not in the possession of a lot of time for merging these libraries myself at the moment, but f you or someone else would be interested in putting work into this I&#39;d be happy to cooperate. B) I&#39;m rather proud of some of the stuff I did in the Postmodern code, and of the docs, so I want to at least have some influence in the merging process. But of course, C) It&#39;s no good to have multiple similar libraries, we should all join together and make a solid CLSQL-replacement.
<br><br>So, let me know what you think.<br><br>Regards,<br>Marijn<br>