| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Henry B(dot) Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JAVA Support |
| Date: | 2006-09-28 21:31:26 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA0FBF9@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > As for the other part - will core accept this - I can't answer that.
>
> It would depend in part on the size of the patch, and on
> whether there are any arguments for supporting GSSAPI besides
> "Java can't do Kerberos".
> What would it buy for a libpq user?
I don't know, really ;-) It seems we're fairly alone in *not* doing
GSSAPI (given for example the MIT Kerberos bug I uncovered when working
on it, that was at the very core of the codepath we're using, which
shows that others arne't using that). We'd be using a much better tested
code, I think.
It *may* be that life on win32 would be much easier, given that Windows
SSPI is supposed to be compatible with GSSAPI when used in the right
way. I don't know any details about this, though. If it does, it would
likely make life easier for .NET applications as well, not just Java.
I'll leave it to Henry to add some more arguments :-)
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-09-28 22:01:12 | Re: JAVA Support |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-28 21:24:26 | Re: JAVA Support |