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

Re: statement caching link on jdbc page

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, Till Toenges <tt(at)kyon(dot)de>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: statement caching link on jdbc page
Date: 2007-10-05 11:26:54
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Kris Jurka wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Till Toenges wrote:
>>> I added a new section "Download Current Version" below the "About"
>>> section. The idea behind this is that most people will be interested
>>> only in one or two versions. In the dummy only one link to the current
>>> JDBC 3 version is included, the download statistics should show which
>>> other versions are popular enough to be included here.
>> I think this is a good idea, but I would include a link to JDBC4 as well
>> because despite our poor support it is the way of the future.
> It'd be nice to have just a single version in the "Current version"
> section. Could we have just the JDBC4 version there? Does it work with
> older JDKs? Would be nice to have a bit more details on which JDK
> versions each jar works with.
No, it doesn't work with older JDK's. Here is the problem. The class 
file structures have changed with newer versions, and cannot be read by 
older JRE's

You cannot compile a newer JDBC with an old compiler since the 
interfaces are not implemented ( among other things ) , and the  newer 
jars cannot be run with older JRE's

We didn't go to all the trouble of making it really hard to understand 
for the sake of obsfucation.

>>> This is also a convenient place to link to the extras page, with a
>>> short description of what else is available. This way, the extras will
>>> be more prominently displayed, and more people will find them.
>> I hoping we fold in the copy stuff so that disappears and until we have
>> some actual documentation/experience with the statement caching version,
>> I'm not sure how prominently I would like to promote it.
> Agreed, let's rather try to get the copy stuff merged.
>>> The table at the end is the same as before. Could be split up in
>>> "Development Versions", "Archived Versions" and "Source Downloads"
>>> tables if it gets too crowded, but it's ok for now.
>> Yeah, since we don't even maintain 7.X anymore, mentioning 6.X and 0.2
>> is a little pointless.
> Splitting maintained and no longer maintained versions into separate
> tables is a good idea. As it is, there's no mention that the older
> versions are not maintained.

In response to


pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-10-05 12:54:15
Subject: Re: statement caching link on jdbc page
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-10-05 09:27:13
Subject: Re: statement caching link on jdbc page

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group