From: | Paul Thomas <paul(at)tmsl(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com |
Cc: | "pgsql-general (at) postgresql (dot) org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: MySQL Gets Functions in Java - Enlightenment Please |
Date: | 2003-12-22 14:55:25 |
Message-ID: | 20031222145525.A26330@bacon |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 22/12/2003 13:17 Dave Cramer wrote:
> [snip]
> > I think anything other than a single jvm would be too much of a
> > performance hit.
>
> Ok, I tend to agree, so does anyone have any preferences for a protocol?
> RMI, RPC, XML-RPC ? Anything better?
My instinct would be to go with something fast and lightweight.
> > On platforms built with GCC3.2+, GCJ might be an alternative.
> There are numerous issues with classpath stuff with GCJ, but I'm
> certainly willing to look at it.
Yes, it has its problems I agree. And it would only be available on a
small subset of all the platforms on which PostgreSQL runs. But it would
eliminate the need for a jvm which is why I suggested it. Swings and
roundabouts I suppose.
--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller
Business |
| Computer Consultants |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2003-12-22 15:07:33 | Re: MySQL Gets Functions in Java - Enlightenment Please |
Previous Message | Lucas Lain | 2003-12-22 14:51:58 | restoring database |