| From: | Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(at)redhat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Kajaba <pkajaba(at)redhat(dot)com>, Dave Cramer <notifications(at)github(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [pgjdbc] Implement JDBC specs via pre-processor step (#435) |
| Date: | 2016-01-07 16:08:53 |
| Message-ID: | 2632533.hiXBjGr46W@nb.usersys.redhat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Hello Vladimir,
On Thursday 07 of January 2016 18:33:19 Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> > Was other possibilities for preprocessing considered?
>
> Other possibilities were explored and it was agreed that preprocessing
> was the least harmful one.
have you links to those discussions/threads?
> > I just work on packaging pgjdbc plugin
>
> Are you running into some issue?
Yes, as we disccussed recently [1], we used to provide postgresql jdbc
plugin for years, and those changes are adding new dependencies at least,
which are not standard (because those are not available in distributions).
The issue could be maintenance, we need to keep an eye on bigger set of
packages, etc. It might be needed, or might not - I haven't decided
myself yet. But why others java projects don't need pre-processing? Java
is not new language, so I'm asking what makes pgjdbc to be different
project compared to other serious/long-existing/very-stable/mature Java
projects.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/378969680.26311404.1449041058684.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2016-01-07 16:13:54 | Re: [pgjdbc] Implement JDBC specs via pre-processor step (#435) |
| Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-01-07 15:33:19 | Re: [pgjdbc] Implement JDBC specs via pre-processor step (#435) |