Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names? - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?
Date
Msg-id 3490.1106667153@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?  (Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com>)
Responses Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?  (Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>)
List pgsql-jdbc
Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> writes:
> Do the jar files now get installed as postgresql-80-jdbc3 or
> postgresql-80-309-jdbc3?

Currently they are installed under the same names they have on the FTP
server, viz

postgresql-8.0.309.jdbc2.jar
postgresql-8.0.309.jdbc2ee.jar
postgresql-8.0.309.jdbc3.jar

This is good for identifying the upstream source, but it does seem like
an awfully specific name to put into an application's classpath.

Another issue is that the prior release still had a jdbc1 jar:

pg74.215.jdbc1.jar
pg74.215.jdbc2.jar
pg74.215.jdbc2ee.jar
pg74.215.jdbc3.jar

> What about multiple versions installed at the same time?  Is that allowed?

Yeah.  We already have these same concepts in place for shared
libraries, where it's customary to provide (eg)

/usr/lib/libpq.so.3.2*
/usr/lib/libpq.so.3@ -> libpq.so.3.2
/usr/lib/libpq.so@ -> libpq.so.3.2

Basically I'm wondering whether there's an equivalent concept to
libraries' major version number.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-jdbc by date:

Previous
From: "Jean-Pierre Pelletier"
Date:
Subject: Re: setObject on PGInterval throws "Unknown Type null"
Next
From: Dave Cramer
Date:
Subject: Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?