Barry,
Well you know my vote!
Just to re-iterate:
1) I don't think it belongs in the driver
2) I think there are better ways of doing it
No I haven't had a chance to look at the xa code yet
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Barry Lind
Sent: October 8, 2001 2:26 AM
To: dave@micro-automation.net
Cc: pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org
Subject: [JDBC] [Fwd: Re: Serialize]
Dave,
I share your concerns about this functionality. In fact last month I
wrote the following in response to a patch to this functionality.
I wouldn't mind this being pulled out of the main code line for now and
moved to contrib until it becomes more robust.
>>Robert,
>>
>>
>>Thanks for the patch. While I didn't review it too closely, what I
>>saw seemed fine.
>>
>>However, I have concerns about the feature as a whole, which really
>>has nothing to do with your patch.
>>
>>I don't like the approach taken here for serialization. It seems to
>>me that this is a half baked attempt to reimplement native java
>>serialization. Why not just use java serialization to do what it
was
>>intended for? We could then store the results of the serialization
in
>>a bytea column, or a LargeObject, or even in a separate table as is
>>done here. However, I am unsure of the desireabilty of creating
these
>>additional tables. The bigest reason I don't like the additional
>>tables is that the serialized objects don't ever get deleted.
>>
>>To the extent that this is documented, I think the feature should be
>>marked as experimental with a caution that it may be changed in
major
>>non-backwardly compatible ways in the future.
>>
>>thanks,
>>--Barry
There are two areas in the current code that I am uncomfortable with.
This serialize code and the code in org/postgresql/xa. Have you looked
at the xa code?
thanks,
--Barry
Dave Cramer wrote:
> While fixing the handling of "unknown" data type in the result set I
was > faced with wading through the Serialize code. > > I am
wondering if this is really a required/desireable feature? > > How
many people out there are actually using it? > > Do we need/want it?
> > My thoughts are: > > 1) There are plenty of persistence layers
which do this job much better. > > 2) I don't think this belongs in a
driver. > 3) The code will be simpler. > > Dave > >
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
