Re: pljava revisited

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>> C++ or C is not a big issue. I might rewrite it into pure C. The main reason
>> for C++ is to be able to use objects with virtual methods. I know how to do
>> that in C too but I don't quite agree that its "just as clean" :-)

> Maybe not, but it's what is used in the core Pg distribution. Go with
> the flow :-)

If you have any hope of someday seeing pljava merged into the main
PG distribution, you had better stick to C. IMHO there would be
essentially no chance of adopting a module that requires C++, simply
because the additional configuration and portability work would be
too much of a pain in the neck. libpq++ got heaved overboard largely
because the autoconf burden for it was too high, and we're unlikely
to look favorably on something that would make us put that back in.

Of course, if you don't think pljava will ever become mainstream,
this argument won't have much force to you ...

regards, tom lane