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
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
> 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
>>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?