On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 07:37:27PM -0700, Barry Lind wrote:
>
> I am one of the jdbc maintainers. That is why I posted this to the list
> as I did. I wanted to see if there was concensus on this issue one way
> or the other. In looking at your patch, I don't have any problems with
> it technically, but I would hate to have it applied, only to remove the
> entire functionality in the future (although I guess that doesn't really
> hurt anything).
Ok.
> I do appreciate you taking your time to put this patch together and
> submitting it. That is how open source projects work after all. I just
> want to make sure there is agreement that this is the right direction
> people want the jdbc driver to go.
No problem.
About Ant->Makefile thing I still cant convince myself that this is
a project worth doing. Ant's only downside is that user needs
to set it up separately and its not a very easy thing to do.
And at the time of Ant 1.1 this was a real problem (for me at
least) as Ant had rather obscure compatibility problems with
various XML libs and finally I decided that 'Ant sucks'.
But with Ant 1.3/1.4 they seems to have that kind of a problems
under control and at least I have not had any problems with it
since then.
But it seems to me that Ant has a positive side too:
* People with Java background probably know Ant better that
'make'. Ant seems to become 'build tool of choice' in
Java world.
* When Ant is set up, it takes care of all local Java
environment, so we in PostgreSQL source do not need
to bother about it.
* In Ant the build file will be much less complex
than a Makefile with same functionality. And same
time in Ant it is much easier to check local
Java internal setup.
Basically I am able to do it, I have managed moderately
sized Java project with Makefile, but it was not nice.
You could check JDBC Makefile from Jan 2001 - it is quite
messy.
--
marko
