On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Euler Taveira <eu...@timbira.com> wrote: >> On 15-06-2012 11:39, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> As long as a free implementation exists, it can be ported to >>> Java/.Net. Sure, it takes more work, but it *can be done*. >>> >> Good point. IMHO, if there isn't a solution that cover all PostgreSQL (it >> seems it is not), we should pick the most appropriate one for *libpq* and let >> other drivers implement it at their time. > > Fair enough if we decide that - but we should make that decision > knowing that we're leaving the JDBC and .Net people in a bad position > where they are not likely to be able to implement his. > > The JDBC people have a theoretical chance if the JDK is open. The .Net > people are stuck with schannel that doesn't support it at this point. > It might well do in the future (since it's in the standard); but > they're at the mercy of Microsoft.
Both Java and C# are open-source enough that anybody can take existing SSL implementation and add compression to it, then distribute it as improved SSL library. -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers