| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-interfaces <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Peter Mount (Home)" <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status |
| Date: | 2000-05-03 04:21:04 |
| Message-ID: | 390FA930.6F489F9B@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
> My two cents: I wouldn't object to postponing release a day or so for
> it, *but* if what we're getting is an un-beta-tested driver then my
> level of enthusiasm drops considerably. I'd rather say "it'll get
> fixed in 7.0.1, after a decent testing interval for the new driver".
Both versions of JDBC are in the Postgres source code tree. The newer
version has more standard conventions for Java namespaces (right
term??) and improvements in conformance to later versions of the JDBC
spec.
Basically the stuff is there already, and we just have a few file
updates to get it finalized. I'd be suprised if it is not ready by the
weekend, so it shouldn't be much of an issue.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-05-03 04:25:43 | Re: [HACKERS] Hardcopy docs about ready |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-05-03 04:19:53 | Testing something ... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-05-03 04:51:19 | Re: [HACKERS] 7.0RC2 compile error ! |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-03 03:53:12 | Re: DBI and Pg error |