From: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Steven Schlansker <stevenschlansker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Christopher BROWN <brown(at)reflexe(dot)fr>, Markus KARG <markus(at)headcrashing(dot)eu>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQLJSON |
Date: | 2015-06-29 22:39:48 |
Message-ID: | CAB=Je-H5E1kVdMoERJTgLR4nr71GxXOOOppDxuYwAzjOfRuh8w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
>For what it's worth, I think bundling the JSONP API with the driver is a bad idea
+1
>To be clear I'm totally fine with a Maven dependency on whatever JSR spec jar is needed,
+1. Probably provided/optional maven scopes could help to isolate
driver's part that implements "json support".
Regarding "getObject", the expected java.lang.Class is provided either
via "Connection.getTypeMap" or explicitly (like in
java.sql.ResultSet#getObject(int, java.lang.Class<T>)).
In other words:
1) If current driver returns String and "after json improvement" it
would start to return JsonValue, then it is likely a
backward-incompatible change. If we go for it, we would probably need
a setting to enable backward-compatible mode (e.g.
"return_string_for_json")
2) getObject(index, JsonValue.class) is somewhat reasonable API to
fetch JsonValue out of a ResultSet. I think it is fine if that
particular call would succeed only if "pgjdbc-json-support.jar" is
added to the list of dependencies (e.g. classpath).
>I just don't want that crap in my Maven build,
+1
>I would not be opposed to having "Driver rollup" bundles like a "jdbc + jsonp-spec + jsonp-ri" jar.
I would :)
Vladimir
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2015-06-29 23:00:35 | Re: SQLJSON |
Previous Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2015-06-29 22:37:12 | Re: SQLJSON |