Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> writes:
> > The official JDBC driver is not being shipped with the project for
> > exactly the same reasons, I fail to see any compelling reason to ship
> > either java PL.
>
> > Unless we are going to create a complete distribution with a unified
> > build, or at least a way to build each project (which I am in favour
> > of) then we leave the server to itself and all other projects exist
> > separately.
>
> The only argument I find interesting for including the PLs in core
> (which has zilch to do with how any particular packager ships them)
> is that it's easier to do maintenance that way: if we make a change in
> an API that affects the PLs, we can change the PLs at the same time.
> However, that argument only holds water if the core developers are
> able/willing to make the corresponding changes. And in that light,
> the fact that PL/Java includes a huge whack of non-C code is very
> significant. *I* won't take responsibility for fixing PL/Java when
> I break it, because I don't know Java well enough. I don't know what
> other people who do core development feel about that --- but I dislike
> the idea that when someone changes such an API, the buildfarm will go
> all red because there's only one person with the ability to fix PL/Java.
I also cannot maintain Java, but we could do something like we do with
WIN32, where outside folks submit patches to fix problems.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
