On 17/09/2003 23:26 Oliver Jowett wrote:
> [snip]
> > I don't subscribe to the view that just because something is do-able
> means
> > that doing it is necessarily a wise thing. That way lies the madness of
>
> > feature-bloat. Who is going to maintain the JNI code? ATM, the JDBC
> driver
> > only requires Java knowledge. Add JNI and a whole new skill set is
> > required. All-in-all, I think the long-term pain could be a lot worse
> that
> > you currently believe.
>
> So you are saying: we should not support unix domain sockets because
> the standard Java libraries do not provide an interface to them, and
> maintaining a custom interface is expensive.
Yes. And for no practical benefit either.
>
> There are enough interested people out there that I don't think
> maintenance
> will be any more of an issue than it is with the rest of the driver. The
> JNI
> code that's needed would be isolated, not very complex, and probably
> maintained as part of a third-party library anyway.
>
> I don't think this is feature bloat at all, it's supporting an existing,
> useful, feature of the backend.
"useful" in only a tiny number of sub-cases where the sysadmin can't be
trusted to correctly type in a couple of lines into two configuration
files/scripts.
> It's not "pgsql over avian carriers".
Maybe that will be the next requested "useful" feature. Or even "pgsql
over the sewerage system" if you've been following Dilbert recently ;-)
--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller
Business |
| Computer Consultants |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
