Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The official JDBC driver is not being shipped with the project for > > exactly the same reasons, I fail to see any compelling reason to ship > > either java PL. > > > Unless we are going to create a complete distribution with a unified > > build, or at least a way to build each project (which I am in favour > > of) then we leave the server to itself and all other projects exist > > separately. > > The only argument I find interesting for including the PLs in core > (which has zilch to do with how any particular packager ships them) > is that it's easier to do maintenance that way: if we make a change in > an API that affects the PLs, we can change the PLs at the same time. > However, that argument only holds water if the core developers are > able/willing to make the corresponding changes. And in that light, > the fact that PL/Java includes a huge whack of non-C code is very > significant. *I* won't take responsibility for fixing PL/Java when > I break it, because I don't know Java well enough. I don't know what > other people who do core development feel about that --- but I dislike > the idea that when someone changes such an API, the buildfarm will go > all red because there's only one person with the ability to fix PL/Java.
I also cannot maintain Java, but we could do something like we do with WIN32, where outside folks submit patches to fix problems. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
