From: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Caching driver on pgFoundry? |
Date: | 2007-09-07 13:13:36 |
Message-ID: | 46E14E80.9030409@opencloud.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Dave Cramer wrote:
> After a quick survey I couldn't find another non-GPL open source app
> server.
Isn't that a fairly arbitary categorization to make? How about open
source app servers that don't begin with 'B'? ;-)
Seriously, not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here. Why
exactly should the existance and licensing of 3rd party software affect
technical decisions about the postgresql JDBC driver?
I think we're drifting away from the main point which is, as I see it,
fairly simple:
What is the implementation advantage of making statement pooling part of
the main driver? There are maintenance issues which count *against* it
being part of the driver so you need to provide a good reason to include it.
Packaging issues are IMO fairly irrelevant because if you must give a
single package to your users, you can always take the base driver and a
separate pooling wrapper, package them together, and say "Hey look here
is the statement-pooling postgresql JDBC driver".
-O
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2007-09-07 13:50:51 | Re: Caching driver on pgFoundry? |
Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2007-09-07 12:33:41 | Re: Caching driver on pgFoundry? |