Re: libpqxx

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Marc G. Fournier writes:
> >> Okay, but if we are going to pull libpqxx, what about the other lib's too?
>
> > Certain things apply to libpqxx that don't all apply to the others libs:
> > It is maintained and developed independently anyway. It's new and not
> > integrated yet. It's a different programming language. It's a
> > non-standard interface. It's big.
>
> > If there is ever going to be any motion toward separating parts of the
> > source tree, libpqxx has to be the start.
>
> I agree with Peter's points here --- but separating libpqxx alone isn't
> the right answer. We need to pull both libpqxx and libpq++ at the same
> time, else we'll be creating the wrong impression about what we think of
> libpqxx.
>
> Another thing that would be reasonable to separate out in the near term
> is interfaces/perl5, which is not favored over the DBI driver.
>
> JDBC and ODBC are almost separate projects already, and perhaps should
> be cut loose so they can have their own release cycles. I'd defer to
> the maintainers of those interfaces about what they want to do, though.
>
> I'm not particularly concerned about removing the other interfaces such
> as libpgtcl and python. They're not large and they're (AFAIK) the only
> alternatives for their languages.

god, ppl finally catch up *roll eyes*

as for libpgtcl and python ... python is seperately maintained by D'Arcy
Cain, so that one isn't a problem ... but who is maintaining libpgtcl?
libpq++ was "the only alternatives for their language" until libpqxx came
along, and from talking to J, libpqxx started off as an attempt to "fix
the bugs" in libpq++ that turned out to be so numerous that starting from
scratch was easier ...

Basically, if somethign doesn't have a maintainer, we're promoting
something we shouldn't be in the first place ...