Re: Want to add to contrib.... xmldbx

> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:35:15PM -0500, Mark Woodward wrote:
>> It gets so frustrating sometimes, it isn't so black and white, there are
>> many levels of gray. The PostgreSQL project is trying so hard to be
>> neutral, that it is making itself irrelevant.
>>
>> Designing and including features that a large group of users would like
>> to
>> have makes sense. Regardless of my extension, I'd love to see PostgreSQL
>> get a little pro-active in positioning itself better.
>
> Firstly, there's a reason why some of the projects were included before
> and have since been removed: Including stuff that depends on PHP in
> PosstgreSQL causes build dependancy loops. You have to have PHP
> installed to compile PostgreSQL and you need to have PostgreSQL
> installed to compile PHP. The only way to solve it is to not mix things
> like that. Not to mention that your release cycles are then
> intertwined, which is the wrong thing for most projects.

The dependency thing is a HUGE problem in general, the solution to which
is not removing cooperation between packages, but through published and
standardized APIs. Of all the crap that Microsoft gets wrong, they have
the right idea when it comes to standarized APIs. A Windows program
written for Windows 95, 11 years ago, runs perfectly fine on Windows XP.

the libpq is a pretty good example as well, as long as the API stays
standard, everything behind it can move all over the place.

>
> I don't understand what you mean by PostgreSQL trying to be neutral.
> Postgres focuses on what it's good at, being a database. It's not
> really for or against anything. The PostgreSQL team is not interested
> in maintaining code that so clearly falls outside of the scope.

That is more or less what I'm writing about. I wish people wouldn't take
it as an insult or slam, because it isn't. (I keep saying, I think
PostgreSQL is amazing, and I've been using it for about a decade.) The
source code to PostgreSQL implements a SQL database, the PostgreSQL
Project defines a community creating and using this database.

Is the scope "the source code" or is the scope "The Postgresql Project?" I
think it can be said that getting more people using PostgreSQL is within
the scope of "The PostgreSQL Project." As the open source model promises,
we trust that the more people who use PostgreSQL the better off "The
PostgreSQL Project" will be. The better "The PostgreSQL Project" is,
theoretically, the more numerous the resources for the project will
become, makeing the community better able to improve the source code.

The community is an important part of "scope."

>
> Secondly, if there is a "large group of users" who want this, why
> doesn't someone do it?

Hello?

> Any one of them could take the source, and
> produce a bundle (say a PostgresPHP Plus Pack) that has all the
> features you think should be in there. If they can demonstrate they can
> maintain it, perhaps the postgresql website can host it the same way it
> hosts the windows installer packages (they're not part of postgres
> either).

There is a difference between having an "after market" part and being
included in the OEM version. This is the IE vs Netscape argument. If
people can download Netscape for free, why was IE pre-installed a problem?
Becuase it is an extra step the user may not want to take or know to take.
If something is there for them from the start, it is easier.

Secondly, building a new community takes years and resources with no
guarentee of success, if there are existing communities with fundimentally
similar goals, it makes more sense to become part of a larger community
than it does to create a new one.