From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Finer Extension dependencies |
Date: | 2012-03-29 12:46:30 |
Message-ID: | 87pqbva82h.fsf@hi-media-techno.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> I gather from previous posts that the intent isn't to allow different
> packages from different authors to provide a common and compatible
> feature; but what happens in the current design if someone
> accidentally or maliciously produces an extension which provides the
> same feature name as another extension?
It's not about that, it's more like the features/require/provide
concepts in Lisp, except that we're not using them to load files.
The goal really is to avoid a feature matrix and a version policy with
comparators, yet be able to depend on features that got implemented
after the first release of an extension.
> Would we need some registry?
That being said, we still have a single namespace for extensions and
their features, so a registry would help, yes.
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-29 12:49:08 | Re: Finer Extension dependencies |
Previous Message | Benedikt Grundmann | 2012-03-29 12:42:07 | Re: Finer Extension dependencies |