Thread: RE: [INTERFACES] Last best version of the JDBC Driver?
The one in CVS is the one that should have been 6.5.3. However, I do have at home the one that should be for 7.0. However due to problems here (like a network that keeps dying on me, and other nice little problems), I've not finished it yet into a state that can be included into CVS. PS: The org.postgresql change has been done, but not fully tested. Peter -- Peter Mount Enterprise Support Maidstone Borough Council Any views stated are my own, and not those of Maidstone Borough Council. -----Original Message----- From: Hakan Tandogan [mailto:hakan42@gmx.de] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 1:28 PM To: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org Subject: [INTERFACES] Last best version of the JDBC Driver? Hi, Is the version of the JDBC driver I'm getting via CVS really the last best one? I remember reading on the hackers list that the driver was about to be repackaged to "org.postgresql", but I don't see this change in the CVS archive. In fact, the last timestamp change I'm seeing is from 15. September. Just curious, Hakan -- Hakan Tandogan hakan@iconsult.com ICONSULT Tandogan - Egerer GbR Tel.: +49-9131-9047-0 Memelstrasse 38 - D-91052 Erlangen Fax.: +49-9131-9047-77 "Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature" ************
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, you wrote: > The one in CVS is the one that should have been 6.5.3. > > However, I do have at home the one that should be for 7.0. However due > to problems here (like a network that keeps dying on me, and other nice > little problems), I've not finished it yet into a state that can be > included into CVS. Will those changes be in 7.0 final or is the "feature freeze" already in effect? If you want, I'd be delighted to test pre-releases of your 7.0 driver. BTW, did you read my other mail about BINARY field types? Any chance that 7.0 could help me with that problem? For example, the LO type could be reported as BINARY... Regards, Hakan -- Hakan Tandogan hakan@iconsult.com ICONSULT Tandogan - Egerer GbR Tel.: +49-9131-9047-0 Memelstrasse 38 - D-91052 Erlangen Fax.: +49-9131-9047-77 "Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature"
Peter, Would you like some help on this :) ? Seems you're fighting a battle alone when theres no need... I can provide CVS etc. and binary downloads, if you say the word... the only problem is that it would be a .com.au domain name, but I'd make sure I'm not complicit in any advertising etc... Also :P I'm dying to get my hands on 7.0 :) Cheers Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Mount" <petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk> To: "'Hakan Tandogan'" <hakan42@gmx.de>; <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 8:39 AM Subject: RE: [INTERFACES] Last best version of the JDBC Driver? > The one in CVS is the one that should have been 6.5.3. > > However, I do have at home the one that should be for 7.0. However due > to problems here (like a network that keeps dying on me, and other nice > little problems), I've not finished it yet into a state that can be > included into CVS. > > PS: The org.postgresql change has been done, but not fully tested. > > Peter > > -- > Peter Mount > Enterprise Support > Maidstone Borough Council > Any views stated are my own, and not those of Maidstone Borough Council. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hakan Tandogan [mailto:hakan42@gmx.de] > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 1:28 PM > To: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org > Subject: [INTERFACES] Last best version of the JDBC Driver? > > > > Hi, > > Is the version of the JDBC driver I'm getting via CVS really the > last > best one? I remember reading on the hackers list that the driver was > about to > be repackaged to "org.postgresql", but I don't see this change in the > CVS > archive. In fact, the last timestamp change I'm seeing is from 15. > September. > > > Just curious, > Hakan > > -- > Hakan Tandogan hakan@iconsult.com > > ICONSULT Tandogan - Egerer GbR Tel.: +49-9131-9047-0 > Memelstrasse 38 - D-91052 Erlangen Fax.: +49-9131-9047-77 > > "Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature" > > ************ > > ************ > >