| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Thomas Hallgren" <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> |
| Cc: | "Dave Cramer" <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Satoshi Nagayasu" <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |
| Date: | 2006-07-12 15:37:01 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920607120837q72c5cceel8f83d26dc82aa98c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/12/06, Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> wrote:
> it didn't seem anywhere close production readiness.
>
> Perhaps it's no surprise that I disagree when you say PL/J could be
> considered in the same light as PL/Java.
Having used both systems, I have to agree with Thomas; PL/Java is far
ahead of PL/J in terms of production readiness. Rather than argue the
differences between the architectures... I think it should be looked
at on a pro/con basis.
Many people have asked for procedural Java and generally pass over
PostgreSQL because they don't know about PL/Java or PL/J. In my
opinion, having a Java PL included in the core would be ideal.
PL/Java seems to be the only Java PL under consistent development and
maintenance, so I don't see it as something that would fall on the
shoulders of all other maintainers.
Just my 2 cents :)
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-12 15:37:37 | Re: lastval exposes information that currval does not |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2006-07-12 14:40:04 | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |