Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Open Sourcing pgManage

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>,Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Open Sourcing pgManage
Date: 2003-11-04 21:49:19
Message-ID: 1067982558.1626.168.camel@localhost.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
If it doesn't do jsp now, it would be a good starting point for a web
version, as java lends it self well to multiple views.

Dave
On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 15:59, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Hello,
> > >>
> > >>  If that is the case that is fine. I just wanted to throw it out there
> > >>but doesn't that mean that
> > >>psql would be separate as well?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >"no new client applications"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > BTW, Joshua, thanks for releasing this - all my client side work is
> > currently Java (a Tomcat webapp in fact) so I'm very interested to see
> > the shape of your app, as I'm sure others are.
> 
> D'oh, just clued into the 'java' aspect ... Joshua, will this run as a
> JSP, remotely, through Jakarta-Tomcat?  One of the limitations of pgAdmin,
> as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that you can run it remotely ... if
> you could run pgManage under something like Jakarta-Tomcat as a JSP, that
> would be *really* cool ...
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>       subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
>       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> 
> 


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-11-04 21:52:33
Subject: Re: UPPER()/LOWER() and UTF-8
Previous:From: Franco Bruno BorghesiDate: 2003-11-04 21:28:12
Subject: What's wrong with this group by clause?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group