Kris Jurka wrote:
> The new V3 protocol code has removed support for compiling with a 1.1 JDK,
> but we still have the core implementation split between jdbc1 and jdbc2
> classes. Should be combine these all into jdbc2 or is there a reason to
> keep these separate?
That sounds reasonable unless there's some reason you'd want to run
JDK1.2 + JDBC1 (I can't think of one).
> To add JDK1.5 support I originally considered an ant conditional
> compilation method, but that was really ugly. Another idea I have is to
> create a jdbc3g subdirectory (JDBC3 w/ Generics) that wouldn't house any
> implementation (AbstractJdbc3g* classes), but would just have the classes
> to offer the API desired by the 1.5 JDK.
In response to
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Dario V. Fassi||Date: 2004-07-16 05:27:04|
|Subject: Re: Very strange Error in Updates|
|Previous:||From: Dario V. Fassi||Date: 2004-07-16 03:13:01|
|Subject: Re: Very strange Error in Updates - Worst than ever !|