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

Re: JAVA Support

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: "Henry B(dot) Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: JAVA Support
Date: 2006-09-29 03:36:18
Message-ID: 9121.1159500978@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> However, that doesn't change that some people would like us to support
> GSSAPI, and there may be some benefit (additional applications, better
> network authentication, etc.) for doing so.  If we can get additional
> programmers to code the support (i.e. Sun, JPL) I don't see any reason
> not to support the *additional* authentication methods.

Well, as I said already, a lot depends on the size of the patch.
As a reductio ad absurdum, if they drop 100K lines of code on us,
it *will* get rejected, no matter how cool it is.

The current Kerberos support seems to require about 50 lines in
configure.in and circa 200 lines of C code in each of the backend
and libpq.  Plus a dependency on an outside library that happens
to be readily available and compatibly licensed.

What amount of code are we talking about adding here, and what
dependencies exactly?  What portability and license hazards will
be added?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-09-29 03:53:29
Subject: Re: New version of money type
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-09-29 03:23:30
Subject: Re: New version of money type

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