Re: Caching driver on pgFoundry?

From: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
To: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Caching driver on pgFoundry?
Date: 2007-09-07 13:13:36
Message-ID: 46E14E80.9030409@opencloud.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

Dave Cramer wrote:

> After a quick survey I couldn't find another non-GPL open source app
> server.

Isn't that a fairly arbitary categorization to make? How about open
source app servers that don't begin with 'B'? ;-)

Seriously, not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here. Why
exactly should the existance and licensing of 3rd party software affect
technical decisions about the postgresql JDBC driver?

I think we're drifting away from the main point which is, as I see it,
fairly simple:

What is the implementation advantage of making statement pooling part of
the main driver? There are maintenance issues which count *against* it
being part of the driver so you need to provide a good reason to include it.

Packaging issues are IMO fairly irrelevant because if you must give a
single package to your users, you can always take the base driver and a
separate pooling wrapper, package them together, and say "Hey look here
is the statement-pooling postgresql JDBC driver".

-O

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2007-09-07 13:50:51 Re: Caching driver on pgFoundry?
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2007-09-07 12:33:41 Re: Caching driver on pgFoundry?