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

Re: Java 1.4

From: Lew <noone(at)lewscanon(dot)com>
To: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Java 1.4
Date: 2012-01-23 18:21:03
Message-ID: jfk8eg$uue$ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
On 01/23/2012 12:34 AM, John Lister 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.

The issue to which I was responding was whether Postgres JDBC drivers should 
support Java 1.4. How does your comment impinge on that?

My reasoning is that if a substantial body of customers uses Java 1.4, and 
there is some evidence that this is true, then Postgres JDBC drivers should be 
available for it.

>>>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

And yet the quote you cite and purport to refute specifically promises 
"updates". How do you explain that?

> 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?

And my answer is yes, we should support Java 1.4, for the reasons I stated and 
to which you have not spoken.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

In response to


pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Kris JurkaDate: 2012-01-23 19:16:21
Subject: Re: test git conversion
Previous:From: Vitalii TymchyshynDate: 2012-01-23 16:45:31
Subject: Re: Java 1.4

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