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

Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?

From: Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?
Date: 2005-01-25 08:54:13
Message-ID: Pine.BSO.4.56.0501250343460.17909@leary.csoft.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

> I have a request filed here:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=145744
> to supply version-less symlinks for the JDBC jarfiles that are
> distributed in the Postgres RPMs.  Does anyone have a comment
> on whether this is a good or bad idea?
> 

It's tough to say, not knowing what happens currently for the jar files or
the server.  If an upgrade is going to change the server major version
without renaming say versioning binaries (psql-74 -> psql-80) then it
doesn't seem any more dangerous to swap out the jar files.

Do the jar files now get installed as postgresql-80-jdbc3 or
postgresql-80-309-jdbc3?  If it's the second case that would be a real 
pain to adjust your application to point to the new one every time it 
changed.

What about multiple versions installed at the same time?  Is that allowed?  
Who gets the generic symlink, the highest version, the last installed,
user choice? Those might be tough questions, but in general the idea seems
alright, because if they want to specify what specific major version to
use they can still do that.

Kris Jurka


In response to

Responses

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Xavier PoinsardDate: 2005-01-25 09:47:34
Subject: Patch for escaped escape char
Previous:From: Kris JurkaDate: 2005-01-25 08:35:52
Subject: Re: Problems with infinity

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