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


From: Herouth Maoz <herouth(at)oumail(dot)openu(dot)ac(dot)il>
To: Peter T Mount <peter(at)taer(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Java, JDBC & CORBA (fwd)
Date: 1998-11-30 15:47:51
Message-ID: l03110707b2886d4b2f57@[] (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-interfaces
At 17:33 +0200 on 30/11/98, Peter T Mount wrote:

> I do on my web site, covering different versions of postgresql. However,
> someone tried a 1.1 binary on a 1.2 JVM, and it complained. It's more
> strict on the class validation.

What I meant was - why not offer the complete bundeled jar (both 1.1 and
1.2, as you suggested) in binary form, and avoid the problem of having to
compile it under two javacs in the target computer. This will force us to
have the two JVMs even if we use onle one... So, do the compilation on your
own set, and distribute the combined Jar. The Jar format itself shouldn't
pose a problem.

Why can you distribute the binaries only from your web site? Any reason you
can't put them in the CVS? Say, in text-encoded format, with the makefile
merely doing the decoding?

I also wonder how come it's impossible to compile 1.1 code under 1.2...
That doesn't make sense, as far as Sun's policy went so far. Perhaps there
is a 1.1 compatibility flag for the 1.2 javac?


Herouth Maoz, Internet developer.
Open University of Israel - Telem project

In response to


pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 1998-11-30 16:09:22
Subject: Re: Odd characters in inserted data...
Previous:From: Byron NikolaidisDate: 1998-11-30 15:42:26

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