Re: [pgjdbc] Implement JDBC specs via pre-processor step (#435)

Hi Pavel,

Other java projects to not attempt to support 3 versions of an API with one
piece of code.

FYI, the PostgreSQL packaging team was able to package rpms for JDBC.

See
http://postgresql.nabble.com/Are-pgrpm-changes-for-JDBC-discussed-here-before-submission-td5879553.html

Dave Cramer

davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com

On 7 January 2016 at 11:08, Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:

> Hello Vladimir,
>
> On Thursday 07 of January 2016 18:33:19 Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> > > Was other possibilities for preprocessing considered?
> >
> > Other possibilities were explored and it was agreed that preprocessing
> > was the least harmful one.
>
> have you links to those discussions/threads?
>
> > > I just work on packaging pgjdbc plugin
> >
> > Are you running into some issue?
>
> Yes, as we disccussed recently [1], we used to provide postgresql jdbc
> plugin for years, and those changes are adding new dependencies at least,
> which are not standard (because those are not available in distributions).
>
> The issue could be maintenance, we need to keep an eye on bigger set of
> packages, etc. It might be needed, or might not - I haven't decided
> myself yet. But why others java projects don't need pre-processing? Java
> is not new language, so I'm asking what makes pgjdbc to be different
> project compared to other serious/long-existing/very-stable/mature Java
> projects.
>
> [1]
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/378969680.26311404.1449041058684.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com
>
> Pavel
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc
>