"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Well I would argue that if compatibility (as opposed to
> familiarity) is our goal, we need to focus on one and only one
> syntax, JDBC. It doesn't matter our particular bent, JDBC is the
> one that is in the most use.
The start of a URI defines the protocol so that the correct protocol
handler can be used, like http: versus ftp:. jdbc:postgresql: URIs
define one protocol on the wire. Are we talking about a separate
protocol or the same one, in terms of what happens on the wire? If
the same one, I would tend to agree with JD that we can just use the
existing URI format. It seems to me that claiming a second protocol
prefix for the same protocol would only be a good idea if there was
a "marketing" benefit in doing so.
If we do decide it's worth getting some non-jdbc-based protocol
identifier, I would suggest pq: if it's not taken, as we call the
library for using it libpq.
-Kevin
