On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:48:56PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I disagree that the only way Postgres should support multiple
> libraries for a given component is if they provide the same API- we
> wouldn't have much in the way of authentication options if that was
> really the case.
I don't believe that was said. However, using two very different APIs
for the exact same purpose, providing the exact same functionality
would seem to require a business case. If fear of litigation over
what seems to be a non-existent point is the only business case, the
position deserves to be challenged.
There are other elements that could be included in the business case.
For example, the documentation for GNUTLS seems to be significantly
better.
I don't like fear mongering. It smells like FUD. :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
