On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 7/13/06, Lukas Smith wrote:
>> However I do think that PostgreSQL is missing out in
>> getting new users aboard that are in the early stages
>> of evalutation and simply only consider features that
>> they get along with a default installation (mostly due
>> to lack of better knowledge about places like pgfoundry).
>
> This is my point exactly. As with many things, we keep skirting the
> real issue by going with an "improve the smaller component" approach
> such as "promote pgfoundry more". I have never seen this approach
> work, but maybe someone has an example of another OSS project that has
> successfully excluded major components like this?
Major component for whom exactly? What %age of PostgreSQL users are using
pl/Java? Are using Java, period?
There is only one *major component* and that is the RDBMS itself ...
everything else is an add on specific to each end users requirements ...
in all of my years of hosting PostgreSQL-backed web sites, I've *never*
had a request for a PL/J* ... lots for JDBC, mind you, just never for the
PLs ...
So, do you have some sort of #s as to why pl/Java is such a 'major
component'? I'd see pl/Perl and pl/PHP as been alot more major ...
> My question is, what is the packagers' stance on this topic? It seems
> like more work for them than for anyone else.
Why more work for them? CommandPrompt developed pl/PHP in such a way that
it doesn't require the PostgreSQL source code at all ... so, a packager
coudl go out, get a binary (rpm?) distro of PostgreSQL, install that and
then build their pl/PHP package, without ever having to touch the
postgresql source code ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
