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).
Ok. > 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 messy. -- marko ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
