Re: statement caching link on jdbc page

Heikki,

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Kris Jurka wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Till Toenges wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I added a new section "Download Current Version" below the "About"
>>> section. The idea behind this is that most people will be interested
>>> only in one or two versions. In the dummy only one link to the current
>>> JDBC 3 version is included, the download statistics should show which
>>> other versions are popular enough to be included here.
>>>
>> I think this is a good idea, but I would include a link to JDBC4 as well
>> because despite our poor support it is the way of the future.
>>
>
> It'd be nice to have just a single version in the "Current version"
> section. Could we have just the JDBC4 version there? Does it work with
> older JDKs? Would be nice to have a bit more details on which JDK
> versions each jar works with.
>
>
No, it doesn't work with older JDK's. Here is the problem. The class
file structures have changed with newer versions, and cannot be read by
older JRE's

You cannot compile a newer JDBC with an old compiler since the
interfaces are not implemented ( among other things ) , and the newer
jars cannot be run with older JRE's

We didn't go to all the trouble of making it really hard to understand
for the sake of obsfucation.

Dave
>>> This is also a convenient place to link to the extras page, with a
>>> short description of what else is available. This way, the extras will
>>> be more prominently displayed, and more people will find them.
>>>
>> I hoping we fold in the copy stuff so that disappears and until we have
>> some actual documentation/experience with the statement caching version,
>> I'm not sure how prominently I would like to promote it.
>>
>
> Agreed, let's rather try to get the copy stuff merged.
>
>
>>> The table at the end is the same as before. Could be split up in
>>> "Development Versions", "Archived Versions" and "Source Downloads"
>>> tables if it gets too crowded, but it's ok for now.
>>>
>> Yeah, since we don't even maintain 7.X anymore, mentioning 6.X and 0.2
>> is a little pointless.
>>
>
> Splitting maintained and no longer maintained versions into separate
> tables is a good idea. As it is, there's no mention that the older
> versions are not maintained.
>
>