It is not possible to replace the non-patched version with the patched version. The patched version only works for oracle.
For inclusion in another directory: I am not aware that we have any license grant from the patch author (saravanna kannan, I believe) for the patches. If this is true, we'd have to get that first. Thomas Robert Dietrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 06.07.2007 19:06:50: > On the topic of the Village classes, I found that the village 2.0 JAR > file packaged with the 3.x releases of Torque does not contain the > Oracle LOB support patch > (https://sweb.uky.edu/~skkann2/village/index.html). Would it be > possible to include this patched Village library with the next version > of Torque? > > If replacing the default Village jar with this version breaks > compatibility with other DBs, perhaps it can still be included in some > non-standard directory of the Torque distribution, with a release note > explaining its inclusion? > > -rob > > ext Thomas Fischer wrote: > > Asking on general@ sounds good to me. > > > > Sorry for not being responsive in the last few months, I have a very > > time-conduming project running at work. > > > > Thomas > > > > Scott Eade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 06.07.2007 01:30:24: > > > > > >> Thomas Vandahl wrote: > >> > >>> How do we proceed here? I wanted to call for a release vote but I would > >>> rather sort this out before. Is it possible to use the Village code as > >>> it is (2.0, I mean)? Then we could simply wrestle it and check it in. > >>> > > Or > > > >>> do we have to change the packages and all imports That would be a PITA > >>> because at least Record is probably used by most of the Torque > >>> > > applications. > > > >> I did ask on members@ whether or not it would be okay for us to retain > >> the existing package names. There was a little discussion over whether > >> or not we could import this code (which we can) but nobody raised any > >> concerns about the package naming (i.e. the question to which I made > >> serious efforts to point the discussion towards was ignored and I am > >> interpreting this as "there are no serious concerns with this"). > >> > >> Since Torque is the responsibility of the DB PMC I will raise this on > >> general@ so that there is an opportunity for objections to be raised > >> > > there. > > > >> Scott > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
