On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 09:07:46PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Of course my humble but thoroughly biased opinion is that libpq++ be
marked legacy.
No doubt, but, if we didn't push one interface over another, then it
would be up to the end-users themselves to decide which one to
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:08:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Who cares? Those that need a C++ interface will know where to find it,
and will report bugs that they have ... why should it be tested on every
platform when we *might* only have those on the Linux platform using it?
Well,
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, jtv wrote:
Looking at it that way, it seems to me that the proper approach is to
cut out all interfaces that don't talk to the backend themselves--e.g.
the ones that build on top of libpq, like libpq++ and libpqxx do.
This is what my opinion is ... what I'm setting up
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:11:06AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
* libpqxx is not integrated into build process nor docs. It should
be integrated or reversed out before beta.
I've requestsed that Jeorgen(sp?) move this over to GBorg ... its
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes:
Mentioning that on -hackers would have been nice -- I've spent a while
this week hacking autoconf / Makefiles to integrate libpqxx...
Marc's opinion is not the same thing as a done deal ;-) --- we still
have to discuss this, and if someone's already
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:08:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
One reason for wanting to integrate libpqxx is that I don't think we'll
find out anything about its portability until we get a lot of people
trying to build it. If it's a separate
I too do not like alot of bloat in the distribution, but I also agree
with what Andrew is saying.
Currently, at the FTP site, you can download the whole tar file, or in 4
separate tarballs. How hard would it be to create a separate tarball for
client related packages? I am not sure if this would
Besides, more generally, Postgres already has a reputation as being
difficult to install. The proposal to separate out all the
non-basics (I'm not even sure how one would draw that line: maybe a
server-only package and a client-library package run through GBorg?)
would mean that anyone
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:08:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
One reason for wanting to integrate libpqxx is that I don't think we'll
find out anything about its portability until we get a lot of
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:36:43PM -0300, Jeff MacDonald wrote:
When you install freebsd or linux, is it a problem that all the
perl modules you need have to fetched from cpan ? why can't they
call just be part of the OS ?'
Well, not just part of the OS, but part of Perl. And after all,
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 03:11:40PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
hassle? Everyone is arguing 'why mysql vs pgsql?' ... if we had a simple
'libpq.tar.gz' that could be downloaded, nice and small, then we've just
made enabling PgSQL by default in mod_php4 brain dead ...
Sorry, I think I
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Sorry, I think I wasn't making myself clear. I think that's a
splendid idea. But I'm not sure it's worth paying for it by making
users who want the whole thing download multiple packages. Maybe I'm
alone in thinking that, however, and it's not like I feel terribly
How many thousands of web sites out there don't offer PgSQL due to teh
hassle? Everyone is arguing 'why mysql vs pgsql?' ... if we had a simple
'libpq.tar.gz' that could be downloaded, nice and small, then we've just
made enabling PgSQL by default in mod_php4 brain dead ...
Case in point, I
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:11:06AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
* libpqxx is not integrated into build process nor docs. It should
be integrated or reversed out before beta.
I've requestsed that
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes:
Mentioning that on -hackers would have been nice -- I've spent a while
this week hacking autoconf / Makefiles to integrate libpqxx...
Marc's opinion is not the same thing as a done deal ;-) --- we still
have to
Mentioning that on -hackers would have been nice -- I've spent a while
this week hacking autoconf / Makefiles to integrate libpqxx...
The problem I have with removing libpqxx is that libpq++ is a far
inferior C++ interface. If we leave libpq++ as the only C++ interface
distributed with
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
* libpqxx is not integrated into build process nor docs. It should
be integrated or reversed out before beta.
I've requestsed that Jeorgen(sp?) move this over to GBorg ... its
something that can, and should be, built seperately from the base
distribution,
17 matches
Mail list logo
