mark@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 01:02:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> PL/Java will improve the visibility of PL/Java to people who won't go
>> looking for it. That's fine, but ultimately that's a packaging argument
>> not a development argument. The people who think PL/Java is an
>> essential checklist item undoubtedly also think JDBC is an essential
>> checklist item, but I'm not seeing any groundswell of support for
>> putting JDBC back into core. Instead we expect packagers (like the RPM
>> set) to make JDBC available alongside the core postgres packages.
>> That's how PL/Java ought to be handled, too, IMHO.
>
> JDBC is different, in that it doesn't require the PostgreSQL core to
> build. It's 100% native Java, and as such, I see benefit to it being
> distributed separately.
PLJava does not need PostgreSQL core to build either. It needs:
pgxs + Postgresql libs + PostgreSQL headers
In essence the PostgreSQL SDK.
If I read what Thomas wrote (late) last night correctly.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL
solutionssince 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
