On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 07:37:27PM -0700, Barry Lind wrote:
> 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.

No problem.

About Ant->Makefile thing I still cant convince myself that this is
a project worth doing.  Ant's only downside is that user needs
to set it up separately and its not a very easy thing to do.
And at the time of Ant 1.1 this was a real problem (for me at
least) as Ant had rather obscure compatibility problems with
various XML libs and finally I decided that 'Ant sucks'.
But with Ant 1.3/1.4 they seems to have that kind of a problems
under control and at least I have not had any problems with it
since then.

But it seems to me that Ant has a positive side too:

* People with Java background probably know Ant better that
  'make'.   Ant seems to become 'build tool of choice' in
  Java world.

* When Ant is set up, it takes care of all local Java
  environment, so we in PostgreSQL source do not need
  to bother about it.

* In Ant the build file will be much less complex
  than a Makefile with same functionality.  And same
  time in Ant it is much easier to check local
  Java internal setup.

Basically I am able to do it, I have managed moderately
sized Java project with Makefile, but it was not nice.
You could check JDBC Makefile from Jan 2001 - it is quite


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to