RE: [gnome-db] Name proposal/contest for gnome-db/gASQL

["Fernando Martins" <fmartins hetnet nl>]

I know too little about CVS, so forgive me if this is wrong, but if egnima
is the name chosen to merge gnome-db and gASQL, would it not be more logical
to leave the modules libgda, libgnomedb, gnomedbfe and gASQL as they are and
put egnima as a virtual module to CVS?

This virtual module would then became real with time, i.e., would get parts
of the existing modules, get new parts or simply call existing modules, when
the project integration becomes more than just the sum of the parts.
Eventually, gnome-db and gASQL names would disappear depending on their
evolution. For instance, the notebook of gASQL would go to egnima and
relationships, table designer, query designer, form integrator/designer,
report desiger (?), scripting code engine (?)) would get their own modules.
The SQL editor should be properly integrated with the query designer,...

It seems to me that is also missing (at least in public written form) a
vision and goals/features/planning for the project.

For instance, to the best of my understanding of both projects, I've seen
gnome-db more has a DBMS front-end, with the goal of making the DBMS easily
accessible and manageable. OTH, gASQL's goal is to ease the development of
database oriented apps (front-ends using DBMSes as back-ends). Correct me if
I'm wrong.

Both the browser from gnome-db and gASQL appear similar (because there is a
common point visible which is the DBMS) but still they are different (have
different goals). Both concepts (DBMS management and app development) are
useful. But it appears to me that the integration should clarify how to best
put them together.

Or am I completely out of context?

Regards,

Fernando