| From: | Steven Schlansker <stevenschlansker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>, Stephen Nelson <stephen(at)eccostudio(dot)com>, dmp <danap(at)ttc-cmc(dot)net>, PostgreSQL JDBC <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JDBC 4 Compliance |
| Date: | 2013-06-26 22:51:00 |
| Message-ID: | 7FF12CB8-374C-4043-931D-C66432505924@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Jun 26, 2013, at 3:29 PM, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> wrote:
>> How about, when Kevin's driver is ready:
>> • recommending the existing driver for JDBC3 and earlier
>> • and Kevin's driver for JDBC4 and greater?
>
> Why not just create a 'pre-JDBC4 branch for the current official one and import Kevin's as JDBC4, for going forward? What I've read seems to indicate a reluctance to make a whole whack of changes on the current code, so putting it over to a branch shouldn't cause to much angst, should it?
Because currently the fork has zero adoption and no momentum, whereas the existing driver has a huge install base of people who expect to continue to receive updates going forward.
Not that it couldn't ever be the main branch, but I think you guys are jumping the gun by a lot. And I'm even a fan of doing the cool new shiny stuff.
The existing driver is tried and true, and I think for a project of PG-JDBC's stature it's going to take a lot more than an alpha driver codebase to switch the project over like that.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Wooten | 2013-06-26 23:57:09 | Re: JDBC 4 Compliance |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2013-06-26 22:44:54 | Re: JDBC 4 Compliance |