[Pljava-dev] Compatibility with Java 1.7 and PostgreSQL 9.2? Is this project still alive?

Sounds good to me.

Sent from my Tricorder

On Jan 12, 2013, at 2:16 AM, Thomas Hallgren <thomas at tada.se> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I decided to create a 'tada' organization instead. That way, we can manage teams and members of the project etc. Open source organizations are free at GitHub. So the new location for the pljava project will be tada/pljava.
>
> Unless I'm missing something, all version CVS history was stripped off when Hal created his repository? If that's the case, then I'm planning to recreate the repository from scratch there so that all CVS version history is retained and then reapply the commits that was made by Hal.
>
> I hope this is OK with everyone.
>
> Thomas Hallgren
>
>
> On 2013-01-11 17:55, Hal Hildebrand wrote:
>> Yes, there are some changes that might not be desirable. Always a good idea to read the change log :).
>>
>> As to the issues, my thought was to make this a flag so the USOE could be conditionally thrown, defaulting to thrown.
>>
>> Hadn't worked on the C code yet, bit that was on my plate.
>>
>> In general, I certainly didn't intend for this to replace the current work. I just threw this out because I solved the generic signature issues and have verified that the code works.
>>
>> Glad people found it useful and I look forward to seeing more work on the fork.
>>
>> Sent from my Tricorder
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Thomas Hallgren <thomas at tada.se> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-01-11 13:38, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>>> On 01/11/2013 06:39 PM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-01-11 01:48, Hal Hildebrand wrote:
>>>>>>> I have a git hub fork where I've worked through these Java 1.6 issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/Hellblazer/pljava
>>>> I'm a bit worried by the changelog on that. The changes to make failures silent, in particular, are not something I am at all comfortable with, especially as they appear to be a workaround for an ORM or other intermediary. If they're going to be there, surely they should be conditional? "notsupportederror={log|throw|ignore}" ?
>>> Looking closer at the changes, I wasn't too thrilled about that part either. Making it conditional seems to be a very good idea.
>>>
>>>> The sources and build look like they would benefit from a clean-up, so that seems like a good idea - but what's this change going to do to Windows build support?
>>> Seems some work remain to the the native parts building. Perhaps we could establish a decent process around this at GitHub? I.e. we use pljava/pjlava as the base where we enter issues and submit pull-requests? I'm not at all against adding collaborators to the actual project either if that would speed up reviews and acceptance of contributions. Anyone who wants to help, please raise a hand.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Thomas Hallgren
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pljava-dev mailing list
>>> Pljava-dev at pgfoundry.org
>>> http://lists.pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pljava-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pgfoundry.org/pipermail/pljava-dev/attachments/20130112/27f0f31a/attachment.html>