From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Open Sourcing pgManage |
Date: | 2003-11-04 21:49:19 |
Message-ID: | 1067982558.1626.168.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
If it doesn't do jsp now, it would be a good starting point for a web
version, as java lends it self well to multiple views.
Dave
On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 15:59, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Hello,
> > >>
> > >> If that is the case that is fine. I just wanted to throw it out there
> > >>but doesn't that mean that
> > >>psql would be separate as well?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >"no new client applications"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > BTW, Joshua, thanks for releasing this - all my client side work is
> > currently Java (a Tomcat webapp in fact) so I'm very interested to see
> > the shape of your app, as I'm sure others are.
>
> D'oh, just clued into the 'java' aspect ... Joshua, will this run as a
> JSP, remotely, through Jakarta-Tomcat? One of the limitations of pgAdmin,
> as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that you can run it remotely ... if
> you could run pgManage under something like Jakarta-Tomcat as a JSP, that
> would be *really* cool ...
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-04 21:52:33 | Re: UPPER()/LOWER() and UTF-8 |
Previous Message | Franco Bruno Borghesi | 2003-11-04 21:28:12 | What's wrong with this group by clause? |