Re: RFC Changing the version number for JDBC please ignore - Mailing list pgadmin-hackers

From Dave Cramer
Subject Re: RFC Changing the version number for JDBC please ignore
Date
Msg-id CADK3HHJ90DzixQzehDSc-_8ADpNAzAP_dKRPRo2p8b3HdDa6Eg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
List pgadmin-hackers
please ignore this. I fat fingered the email address.

Dave Cramer

On 27 November 2016 at 09:12, Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com> wrote:
We are proposing changing the JDBC version from 
9.4.xxxx to 42.x.x

We have two issues we are trying to address here.

1) we do not want to be tied to the server release schedule. This has been somewhat addressed already but has left us with the second issue.

2) Avoid confusion as to which version to use with which server version. Currently the naming scheme has 9.4 in it which leads people to believe it is for server version 9.4

The driver is version agnostic for the most point so there is no reason to tie it to a specific server version.

I've already talked to the package managers and they see no problems.

Please speak up now if you foresee any issues with this idea.

FYI, 42 was more or less chosen at random. But it is large enough to avoid any future conflicts with the server, and greater than 9 to avoid issues with maven requesting things like > 9


Dave Cramer

pgadmin-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC Changing the version number for JDBC
Next
From: Surinder Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [pgAdmin4][Patch]: Fixes #1986 - Properly handle non-ascii characters while loading & saving file