On Tuesday 28 May 2002 05:45, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > At 14:48 25.05.2002 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > >When I say "evil" I mean "current specification is not strict enough and > >allows for the implementation vendors to extend it in all kinds of > >incompatible directions", hence making "pluggability" a paper-tiger. > > Log4j-dev mailing list enters the Guiness world records book for the > first Java vs. SQL discussion. By the way, Python rules! Long live Fortran.
:o) I know this is WAY off topic, but I can't resist. It has been boiling in me for quite a while. SQL92 is a standard(!), but has three levels, and all vendors implement a mishmash from each level plus their own extensions, and yet unshamely claim SQL92 compliance. If you develop against a DB, you end up with the smallest common denominator, which can be compared to the C/C++ war of the late 80's early 90's, until JAVA showed up and rectified it. IF SQL wasn't so incompatible, the need of JDO wouldn't be a big thing. > If I understand correctly Niclas, you just volunteered to write a > fixed-table JDBCAppender and a JDBCRetreiver, did you? Well, temptation is great, but at the moment our development schedule is worse than ever. Perhaps after July 1st deadline. > >My highly opinionated assertion is most humble, of course. > > If it is backed up by code then it no longer needs to be humble. You must be a gambling man ;o) "Put your money where your mouth is..." Very challanging. Niclas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
