Re: SQLJSON - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc

Being a JAX-RS EG member I need to chime in here: JAX-RS actually is fully
backwards compatible, fully intentionally. We will never break any existing
feature, and I think I am speaking for hardly every JSR EG when I say that
most (if not all) JSR standards are always backwards compatible. The 22
different versions actually are no releases but development milestones not
intended for productive use.

All parts of Java EE have a restriction that nothing may break backwards
compatibility ever. This not only is true of JAX-RS but most certainly also
JSON-P and JSON-B. It is a guarantee the Java EE spec lead (Bill Shannon)
gives for all parts of the Java EE platform. So we can really safely rely on
that.

-Markus

On Jun 30, 2015, at 10:25 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht@8Kdata.com>
wrote:

>
>    Thanks for asking for the double-check. No, indeed I'm still asking to
provide the class files for the API in the package. I feel that's the right
way, and I don't see it would create conflicts unless JSR353 would create a
new version, something which I believe extremely unlikely until it merges
with Java10 or JDBC5 comes out, point at which we would need to change
things anyway.

I do not believe this is as unlikely as you think.  For example, the
javax.ws.rs JAX-RS spec has 22 different versions available on Maven
Central.  Granted, many of these are milestone builds and not releases, but
there are already two major versions, a patch available and a new minor
version coming through the pipes.

So assuming these spec jars will not change is provably false.  One of my
fears is that if PG bundles JSR353 1.0, and I need JSR353 1.0.1, I now need
to fight the driver packaging to upgrade a theoretically unrelated package.

>
>    However, I don't want to insist more or suck more dev bandwitch, that's
my opinion and it's been stated more times than I wish, so I would now leave
the decision to the rest of you :)
>
>    Regards,
>
>    Alvaro
>
>
> --
> Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
>
>
> -----------
> 8Kdata
>
>
>
> On 30/06/15 18:49, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
>> ah. I meant to double-check with Álvaro if he is suggesting compile
>> type dependency.
>>
>> If he means that we in fact are discussing the same thing, so no
>> contradiction exists.
>>
>>> However, regarding POLA you say "compile dependency" which means you
>>> suggest _not_ including javax.json into pgjdbc.jar
>>>
>>> Álvaro , Can you please tell us if "using compile type dependency for
both
>>> javax.json and RI" suits you?
>>>
>> Vladimir
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc