Re: Maven Artifact JDK Suffix

On 14 January 2016 at 18:34, Sehrope Sarkuni <sehrope(at)jackdb(dot)com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov <
> sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> >[2]: 9.4.1210.jre7 > 9.4.1207.jre8
>>
>> So what is the problem with that?
>> I do not think there is a "proper" way to compare 1210.jre7 vs 1207.jre8.
>> I do not think it outweights "multiartifact" drawbacks I list below.
>>
>> What I fear is java 10 when we would hit a string literal comparison wall.
>> Thus we might want use jre07, jre08, jre09 to be prepared for jre10 :)
>>
>
> Well having separate artifacts obviates any issues with numeric string
> compares :)
>
>
>> > They're entirely different artifacts
>>
>> They are not.
>> For instance: is it sane to include _both_ artifacts at the same time?
>> I do not think so.
>>
>
> They are different artifacts but they provide a common dependency. I don't
> think it'd be straightforward to add that concept into the way that Maven
> works. Maybe if we had a separate "org.postgresql/postgresql" dependency
> that contained only interfaces with the "org.postgresql/postgresql-jre8"
> (and -jre7 or jre6) being marked as including it. That way a library that
> is meant to be PG specific could specify an interface dependency on the
> former but allow the user to specify the specific driver version they'd
> like to use. Unfortunately that seems overly complicated ...
>
>
>> Having different artifact ids would:
>> 1) Open can of worms with "multiple pgjdbc artifacts at the same time".
>> 2) Make upgrading pgjdbc very hard.
>>
>
> #1 is a valid point. If it's possible to have both defined in the same pom
> then you could presumably end up with both on the classpath. Following up
> on the overly complicated extra dependency idea I mentioned above, this
> could be solved by having JRE specific naming of the implementation classes
> (ex: org.postgresql.jre8.core). That way you can have multiple versions on
> the classpath ... but again that's getting overly complicated.
>
> I think the simplest solution is to just add the explicit jre8 suffix to
> the JRE 8 version of the driver. Whether we also have an unsuffixed version
> as a "latest" version is a separate debate (and my vote is leaning towards
> a "no" on that).
>
>
I would have to agree with this. I think people will be surprised (not in a
good way) if we upgrade to java 9 and all of a sudden maven pulls down JDBC
for java 9

Dave