| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Hiroshi Inoue" <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Practical impediment to supporting multiple SSL libraries |
| Date: | 2006-04-14 09:27:24 |
| Message-ID: | 871ww0h5hf.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> > Well, the psqlODBC driver apparently ran into a number of problems with
> > libpq that resulted in them not using it for their purpose. Given libpq
> > primary purpose is to connect to PostgreSQL, it failing at that is
> > something that should be fixed.
>
> I think you are forgetting, that e.g. a JDBC driver will not want to depend
> on an external C dll at all. It will want a native Java implementation
> (Group 4). Thus imho it is necessary to have a defined wire protocol, which
> we have.
I think you are forgetting that this is a complete nonsequitor.
Nobody suggested eliminating the defined wire protocol. Nor was anybody even
discussing JDBC. Java folks' fetish for reimplementing everything in Java is
entirely irrelevant.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2006-04-14 09:42:02 | Re: Control File |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD | 2006-04-14 08:05:47 | Re: Practical impediment to supporting multiple SSL libraries |