Josh Berkus wrote:
> >I'm inclined to think that pljava is best off staying as a separate
> >project.
>
> I disagree. One of the things I'm asked by every single tech market
> analyst, after replication & clustering, is whether we have support for
> procedural Java. So it's something large-scale users want. If PL/Tcl
> belongs in the back end, then so does PL/Java.
We've discussed this before, regarding PL/php IIRC. The conclusions the
last time around, as far as I remember, was that we wanted the PLs to be
in the same CVS repo, but able to be compiled separately from the whole
source tree. So we could sort of rip PL/Perl et al from the actual
backend code, leaving only enough infrastructure to be able to build
them easily (PGXS plus a bunch of stuff, I imagine). PL modules would
follow the backend branches so that there would be no need for pesky
#ifdef PGSQL_VERSION_THIS_OR_THAT stuff; but they would actually be
separate.
The main motivation was that when somebody wants to change an interface
in the backend that's used by PLs, it's useful to change all of them at
the same time instead of waiting until release time comes and the things
does not compile anymore and nobody remembers when or where they were
broken.
I think this would also allow PL/R to be included as well despite the
license, because while it would be in the same repo and editable
together with the backend, it would continue to be a separate project
and thus not contaminate the backend with GPL stuff.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
