Maven Artifact JDK Suffix

From: Sehrope Sarkuni <sehrope(at)jackdb(dot)com>
To: List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Maven Artifact JDK Suffix
Date: 2016-01-11 00:02:59
Message-ID: CAH7T-aoBbaEm5UTF_4iipK7QKkidqObOgwoNnr-SGPKaivvzqg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

Why doesn't the JDK 8 version of the Maven artifact for the driver include
the .jre8 suffix?

Here's what's currently on the main README:

<dependency>
<groupId>org.postgresql</groupId>
<artifactId>postgresql</artifactId>
<version>9.4.1207</version> <!-- Java 8 -->
<version>9.4.1207.jre7</version> <!-- Java 7 -->
<version>9.4.1207.jre6</version> <!-- Java 6 -->
</dependency>

The other versions are JDK version suffixed and at some point there will be
a JDK 9. Why not name it X.jre8 so that we're ready for when that day comes?

Somewhat related, is it possible for more than one JDBC release to come out
for the same JDK version or will that not happen anymore?

If so, we'd be better off naming the releases off the JDBC version (ex:
9.4.127.jdbc42). Each JDBC version already has a min supported JDK version
associated with it (ex: JDBC 4.2 requires JDK 8+) so it's super set of
tracking JDK versions. Then again, if the days of JDBC updates out of band
from JDK updates are gone, it's just extra noise/confusion (vs. tracking
against the JDK version).

Regards,
-- Sehrope Sarkuni
Founder & CEO | JackDB, Inc. | https://www.jackdb.com/

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2016-01-11 00:05:10 Re: Maven Artifact JDK Suffix
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2016-01-10 16:37:52 Re: Recent backward compatibility break in PreparedStatement.setObject()