Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?

Tom Lane wrote:

>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.
>
>
Agreed, I think we can drop the version number out of the linked file name

>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
>
>
>
We've dropped support for jdk 1 and subsequently jdbc1

>>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.
>
>
I don't think this works with java, there is more information in the
class file besides the signature of the class. The jar needs to be
compiled by the same version of java that it will run under.

> regards, tom lane
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>
>
>

--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561