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

Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?
Date: 2005-01-25 15:32:33
Message-ID: 3490.1106667153@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> writes:
> Do the jar files now get installed as postgresql-80-jdbc3 or
> postgresql-80-309-jdbc3?

Currently they are installed under the same names they have on the FTP
server, viz

postgresql-8.0.309.jdbc2.jar
postgresql-8.0.309.jdbc2ee.jar
postgresql-8.0.309.jdbc3.jar

This is good for identifying the upstream source, but it does seem like
an awfully specific name to put into an application's classpath.

Another issue is that the prior release still had a jdbc1 jar:

pg74.215.jdbc1.jar
pg74.215.jdbc2.jar
pg74.215.jdbc2ee.jar
pg74.215.jdbc3.jar

> What about multiple versions installed at the same time?  Is that allowed?  

Yeah.  We already have these same concepts in place for shared
libraries, where it's customary to provide (eg)

/usr/lib/libpq.so.3.2*
/usr/lib/libpq.so.3@ -> libpq.so.3.2
/usr/lib/libpq.so@ -> libpq.so.3.2

Basically I'm wondering whether there's an equivalent concept to
libraries' major version number.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Dave CramerDate: 2005-01-25 16:40:13
Subject: Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?
Previous:From: Oliver SiegmarDate: 2005-01-25 15:07:59
Subject: Re: Problems with infinity

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