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.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to