Re: [Pljava-dev] annotation keyword changes before 1.5.0 (?)

From: Peter Henderson <peter(dot)henderson(at)starjar(dot)com>
To:
Subject: Re: [Pljava-dev] annotation keyword changes before 1.5.0 (?)
Date: 2015-12-21 01:11:31
Message-ID: CAKJ3sLy04vuLwnDNBrMnGAp=npj4R9x2cG10=Jc_6sLfBDFBnQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pljava-dev

Just my £0.0002 worth

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
wrote:

> There has been some code in the tree for Java annotation support
> ever since January 2005, but I'm not sure how usable or used it
> was before March 2013. That was after the most recent numbered
> release, so I think 1.5.0 will be the first numbered release
> featuring annotation support in a significant way. So, there will
> probably never be a better time to change any of the annotation
> keywords, if they are worth changing. No one who has been using
> prebuilt distributions from pgFoundry will have used them yet.
>
> - In a @Function annotation, the keyword 'type' is used to specify
> the volatility category (volatile, stable, immutable). That dates
> all the way back to 2005, but I'd rather have 'type' mean
> the SQL type of the function return (right now, you have to say
> 'complexType' for that, which isn't intuitive). I was stuck for a
> a while on a good, short, alternative keyword. I'm not thrilled
> with 'volatility' because it's both long and semi-redundant
> (volatility=volatile makes you snicker, volatility=immutable
> makes you wince). I think my current favorite idea is 'effects'.
> I think all of (effects=volatile, effects=stable, effects=immutable)
> will be clear at sight when you know the PostgreSQL concepts.
>

Personally I'd prefer names similar to those used in the main documentation
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/xfunc-volatility.html

volatility=Volatile
volatility=Stable
volatility=Immutable

Make sense to me. Plus relate to the same terms used by a PL/pgSQL function.

> Any reactions or suggestions to the above (including "wait! stop! nooo,
> don't change any keywords!") welcome.
>
> -Chap
> _______________________________________________
> Pljava-dev mailing list
> Pljava-dev(at)lists(dot)pgfoundry(dot)org
> http://lists.pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pljava-dev
>

--
Peter Henderson

Director
Starjar Ltd.
www.starjar.com
0330 088 1662

In response to

Responses

Browse pljava-dev by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chapman Flack 2015-12-21 02:49:50 Re: [Pljava-dev] annotation keyword changes before 1.5.0 (?)
Previous Message Chapman Flack 2015-12-19 20:09:30 Re: [Pljava-dev] PL/Java build/installation rework ready to merge