The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > And then I couldn't figure out where the project is heading, so I didn't
> > know what to work on, so I didn't. I want to know up front if PQ is
> > disappearing in favour of Corba or not.
>
> Eventually ... maybe. But, I agree with Tom on this, it will be awhile
> before libpq can/will disappear, as there is too much code out there that
> relies on it. Figuring our release cycles being 4-6mos, and figuring that
> it would be *at least* 2 full releases after Corba was fully implemented
> before we could phase out libpq, figure, oh, 2 years at least before libpq
> *could* disappear :)
When you say "libpq", do you mean the API or the protocol? The API can
stay forever if it is implemented in terms of a Corba API.
I've been looking into it. The thing I've come up against now is
postgres' advanced types. Does every postgres type, user-defined or not
now need a Corba IDL definition if we go to Corba? If so, how do people
feel about it? If we go to a binary representation protocol (which I
believe is the right thing BTW), there has to be something which can
marshal etc, and using IDL to achieve it may as well be it.
But when I started to realise this aspect and the amount of work, Corba
started to get pushed down my TODO list in favour of a quick fix to the
current protocol to do my OO stuff.
