Re: SQLJSON

On Jun 30, 2015, at 10:25 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)8Kdata(dot)com> wrote:

>
> Thanks for asking for the double-check. No, indeed I'm still asking to provide the class files for the API in the package. I feel that's the right way, and I don't see it would create conflicts unless JSR353 would create a new version, something which I believe extremely unlikely until it merges with Java10 or JDBC5 comes out, point at which we would need to change things anyway.

I do not believe this is as unlikely as you think. For example, the javax.ws.rs JAX-RS spec has 22 different versions available on Maven Central. Granted, many of these are milestone builds and not releases, but there are already two major versions, a patch available and a new minor version coming through the pipes.

So assuming these spec jars will not change is provably false. One of my fears is that if PG bundles JSR353 1.0, and I need JSR353 1.0.1, I now need to fight the driver packaging to upgrade a theoretically unrelated package.

>
> However, I don't want to insist more or suck more dev bandwitch, that's my opinion and it's been stated more times than I wish, so I would now leave the decision to the rest of you :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Alvaro
>
>
> --
> Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
>
>
> -----------
> 8Kdata
>
>
>
> On 30/06/15 18:49, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
>> ah. I meant to double-check with Álvaro if he is suggesting compile
>> type dependency.
>>
>> If he means that we in fact are discussing the same thing, so no
>> contradiction exists.
>>
>>> However, regarding POLA you say "compile dependency" which means you
>>> suggest _not_ including javax.json into pgjdbc.jar
>>>
>>> Álvaro , Can you please tell us if "using compile type dependency for both
>>> javax.json and RI" suits you?
>>>
>> Vladimir
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc