[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 01:02:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
PL/Java will improve the visibility of PL/Java to people who won't go
looking for it. That's fine, but ultimately that's a packaging argument
not a development argument. The people who think PL/Java is an
essential checklist item undoubtedly also think JDBC is an essential
checklist item, but I'm not seeing any groundswell of support for
putting JDBC back into core. Instead we expect packagers (like the RPM
set) to make JDBC available alongside the core postgres packages.
That's how PL/Java ought to be handled, too, IMHO.
JDBC is different, in that it doesn't require the PostgreSQL core to
build. It's 100% native Java, and as such, I see benefit to it being
distributed separately.
PLJava does not need PostgreSQL core to build either. It needs:
pgxs + Postgresql libs + PostgreSQL headers
In essence the PostgreSQL SDK.
If I read what Thomas wrote (late) last night correctly.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
