Re: JDBC 4 Compliance - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc

From Marc G. Fournier
Subject Re: JDBC 4 Compliance
Date
Msg-id 4E82C61C-9AFD-4DD5-97B2-7983F96A0B5C@hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: JDBC 4 Compliance  (Andrew Hastie <andrew@ahastie.net>)
Responses Re: JDBC 4 Compliance  (Tom Dunstan <pgsql@tomd.cc>)
List pgsql-jdbc
On 2013-06-27, at 05:45 , Andrew Hastie <andrew@ahastie.net> wrote:

> 2. To say that anything prior to Java7 is "dead" is ridiculous at this point in time, at least in a commercial
environment.In one or two year's time however it may be different. Yes, there may be compelling security reasons to
upgradefrom 6 to 7, but in an existing deployed commercial environment happily running Java 5 or 6, you are only going
toupgrade to Java 7 if there is a very good reason to do so. I can recall numerous examples of a "simple" Java version
upgradebreaking one or more production systems. I've just checked the very latest WebShere offering from IBM (Version
8.5.5)and that still installs Java6 by default. 

Stupid question, but in an "existing deployed commercial environment happily running Java 5 or 6", are they going to be
upgradingtheir JDBC more frequently then their JDK?   basically, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies to their
JDK,won't it apply to there jDBC too?    




pgsql-jdbc by date:

Previous
From: Dave Cramer
Date:
Subject: Re: JDBC 4 Compliance
Next
From: Kevin Wooten
Date:
Subject: Re: JDBC 4 Compliance