I am one of the jdbc maintainers.  That is why I posted this to the list 
as I did.  I wanted to see if there was concensus on this issue one way 
or the other.  In looking at your patch, I don't have any problems with 
it technically, but I would hate to have it applied, only to remove the 
entire functionality in the future (although I guess that doesn't really 
hurt anything).

I do appreciate you taking your time to put this patch together and 
submitting it.  That is how open source projects work after all.  I just 
want to make sure there is agreement that this is the right direction 
people want the jdbc driver to go.


Marko Kreen wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 01:23:13PM -0700, Barry Lind wrote:
>>I don't like this patch.  If anything I think we should remove the 
>>dependency on ANT, not remove the dependency on make.
>>By requiring ANT, we provide yet another hurdle for someone wanting to 
>>use JDBC with postgres.  I would prefer that the build environment be 
>>the same for the database as for the jdbc code.
>>Anything that makes it more difficult to download the source and get 
>>going with it is a negative in my opinion.  And from my perspective 
>>requiring the download of an additional tool (ANT in this case) makes it 
>>more difficult.
> I have no strong feelings about current situation, I simply made
> it more flexible.  About changing it, you should consult JDBC
> maintainers first, maybe they have some good reason why its
> so...
>>I already know that some binary distributions of postgres do not include 
>>JDBC simply because it is too complex to get ANT installed in their 
>>build environment. (complex perhaps isn't the right word, but it is more 
>>work than they are willing to put in for a small feature of postgres).
> JDBC driver is simply a .jar file, I think it should be more
> easily downloadable from main website.  (JDBC1/JDBC2 edition...)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

Reply via email to