Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Java 1.4

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: John Lister <john(dot)lister-ps(at)kickstone(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Java 1.4
Date: 2012-01-23 14:02:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
Before we go much further down this road I'd like to understand the goal here.

The main project has a guide to how to submit patches. Paraphrased it
says that if the patch is significant you should propose it on the
list for discussion.

The reason I bring this up is that recently we had someone on the list
propose that he was going to move the project to git and had setup a
repository and we were going to simply change the revision control
system. Since then that person has disappeared from the list, however
this caused a flurry of activity which fortunately has been followed
up by Maciek.

More recently a patch has been presented with the subject NIO support.
This patch in fact only provides an alternative implementation of
setTimeout. The author has promised an NIO implementation later.

All of these proposals require significant changes in the project, and
as such need to be discussed on the list. For instance I do believe
there was some discussion on alternative implementations for
setTimeout as the one that I wrote was a bit too simple. That being
said I don't think we can entertain any of these without a plan.

So back to my initial point. Can we get some discussion on the
benefits of both NIO, and dropping 1.4 ?

Dave Cramer


On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:34 AM, John Lister
<john(dot)lister-ps(at)kickstone(dot)com> wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2011 Lew<noone(at)lewscanon(dot)com>  wrote:
>>On 01/22/2012 02:11 PM, Oliver Jowett wrote:
>>>On 23 January 2012 07:59, Lew<noone(at)lewscanon(dot)com>  wrote:
>>>>"The" vendor?  There are more than one.
>>>Which other Java vendors do you think we should consider here?
>>All of them.
>>IBM markets several Java implementations (PC, Z/OS, ...). HP has at least
>> one.
>>Oracle itself has several.
> I think the issue is particular JDK revisions. I would imagine IBM, et al
> stick to the jdk specs (or should be) and so long as we don't use any vendor
> specific extensions then it should work across the board. Even if it doesn't
> I imagine many of the other versions are commercial offering for which I
> don't have the money to purchase a licence and I'm sure others are in the
> same boat.
>>>What do their release/support schedules look like?
>>You can Google it as well as I can, señor.  Here's one link to Oracle's
>>support, which continues to uphold version 1.4:
>>As far as I can tell from the Oracle website, there's no announced plan or
>>date for discontinuation of support for 1.4 yet.
>> "... enjoy Oracle Lifetime Support as well as updates on older releases
>> dating
>>back to Java SE 1.4.2"
> But that is only "sustaining support" which doesn't include any updates or
> fixes as I read it. The Extended support which potentially offers fixes, etc
> expires next year for 1.4 and a year after for 1.5. However I would use a
> similar argument as above, I don't have access to those commercial licences
> or any fixes, etc
> I understand that large enterprise setups are where 1.4 is being used which
> is why I posed the question, but I would echo the sentiments of Till in an
> earlier post, that the people with a requirement for 1.4 are unlikely to use
> a new version of the driver without substantial testing or a new version of
> the database, and if they do are likely to have paid support... but I maybe
> wrong?
> John
> --

In response to


pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Till ToengesDate: 2012-01-23 14:12:23
Subject: Re: Java 1.4
Previous:From: John ListerDate: 2012-01-23 08:34:56
Subject: Re: Java 1.4

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group