On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 09:29:06AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> I'm being objective here, and PL/J is not nearly as stable or
> well-maintained... that means a lot to me or to anyone who looks at
> using a Java PL. Do we intend to ship both and say that one is less
> capable? Have you used either of them? Don't get me wrong, I like
> PL/J in concept... but it's just not even close to production-ready
> yet. I know of no one using PL/J in production and about 40 or so
> people using PL/Java.
On the subject of 38K lines of code, much that isn't C (going by memory,
I apologize if this is wrong), how many of these lines could be/should be
shared between PL/Java and PL/J? It seems to me that the general concepts
should be in common, and that it is only how the Java interfaces with the
backend that changes. Could they not be one PL, with two mechanisms for
speaking to the backend?
I agree with competition to improve quality, but at some point, with
too few maintainers, and one project clearly more advanced in terms of
maturity than the other, that perhaps having two separate projects
does not make sense. It sounds to me like PL/Java is rich in terms of
PostgreSQL abstractions, and that this shouldn't be a reason to
penalize it. Does it really matter how much Java code there is in it?
It's only the C code that needs to interface with the backend.
Or perhaps I'm out to lunch, and the PL/Java abstractions are tightly
tied to the backend API, and there is thousands of lines of unnecessary
code.
Now you are going to make me try them both out. I have not tried either.
Cheers,
mark
--
mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness
bindthem...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
