On 13-Jul-06, at 1:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> I also cannot maintain Java, but we could do something like we do
>> with
>> WIN32, where outside folks submit patches to fix problems.
>
> However, a win32 failure breaks only the win32 buildfarm members ...
>
> Basically my point here is that I see no synergy from having PL/Java
> (or PL/J for that matter) in core. They can't share the same
> configure
> or build support as the rest of the code; the core developers don't
> feel
> qualified to maintain them; what's left?
>
> The argument in favor boils down to one and only one thing: bundling
> PL/Java will improve the visibility of PL/Java to people who won't go
> looking for it. That's fine, but ultimately that's a packaging
> argument
> not a development argument. The people who think PL/Java is an
> essential checklist item undoubtedly also think JDBC is an essential
> checklist item, but I'm not seeing any groundswell of support for
> putting JDBC back into core.
Well, if this discussion ends up in a java project getting into core
then there would be no reason whatsoever not to include JDBC. It's
certainly more germane to the project than the java pl's
> Instead we expect packagers (like the RPM
> set) to make JDBC available alongside the core postgres packages.
> That's how PL/Java ought to be handled, too, IMHO.
>
> In my own experience dealing with the Red Hat RPMs, it got a whole lot
> easier to package JDBC correctly once it wasn't mis-bundled into a
> basically non-Java source tarball, so I think that the packagers will
> also find that keeping it separate makes their lives easier.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Regards,
Dave
