Re: Proposal - libpq Type System beta-0.8a (was PGparam)

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Chernow wrote:
>> Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Andrew Chernow wrote:
>>>> It might be something with the attachment, who knows.
>>>
>>> Most probably that was the case, yes. The -hackers list is limited,
>>> please use -patches to send patches. ;-)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Markus
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Noted.
>>
>> In our case, its a little ambiguos whether -hackers or -patches is the
>> correct place. We are really posting a proposal that happens to have
>> a working implementation. We are looking for feedback and/or a
>> discussion.
>>
>>
>
> You should split it and send the proposal to -hackers. Ideally, you
> would have had a proposal discussed before you wrote a line of code.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>

>>proposal discussed before you wrote a line of code
Yeah, we realize that. In our situation, we use this code internally
which is why it exists. Back in Aug 2007, we packaged it up and
proposed it because we thought it would be useful to others. Since
then, we have submitted several versions. Feedback was minimal.

In fact, only Tom has made suggestions, which we have taken into
consideration and adjusted the spec accordingly.

We are interested in having a discussion about the beta-0.8a proposal
and concept, not the implementation or submitting procedures. We
provided the code in case someone wants to take a test drive.

Andrew