Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?
Date: 2005-01-25 15:32:33
Message-ID: 3490.1106667153@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> writes:
> Do the jar files now get installed as postgresql-80-jdbc3 or
> postgresql-80-309-jdbc3?

Currently they are installed under the same names they have on the FTP
server, viz

postgresql-8.0.309.jdbc2.jar
postgresql-8.0.309.jdbc2ee.jar
postgresql-8.0.309.jdbc3.jar

This is good for identifying the upstream source, but it does seem like
an awfully specific name to put into an application's classpath.

Another issue is that the prior release still had a jdbc1 jar:

pg74.215.jdbc1.jar
pg74.215.jdbc2.jar
pg74.215.jdbc2ee.jar
pg74.215.jdbc3.jar

> What about multiple versions installed at the same time? Is that allowed?

Yeah. We already have these same concepts in place for shared
libraries, where it's customary to provide (eg)

/usr/lib/libpq.so.3.2*
/usr/lib/libpq.so.3@ -> libpq.so.3.2
/usr/lib/libpq.so@ -> libpq.so.3.2

Basically I'm wondering whether there's an equivalent concept to
libraries' major version number.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2005-01-25 16:40:13 Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?
Previous Message Oliver Siegmar 2005-01-25 15:07:59 Re: Problems with infinity