On 7-Sep-07, at 9:13 AM, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>> After a quick survey I couldn't find another non-GPL open source
>> app server.
>
> Isn't that a fairly arbitary categorization to make? How about open
> source app servers that don't begin with 'B'? ;-)
It's not arbitrary at all. see below
>
> Seriously, not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here.
> Why exactly should the existance and licensing of 3rd party
> software affect technical decisions about the postgresql JDBC driver?
>
Companies are fairly careful when choosing components to put in their
stack. GPL licensed products are considered to be business non-
friendly. I was responding to Simon's suggestion that they could have
used any other app server which did implement statement caching.
> I think we're drifting away from the main point which is, as I see
> it, fairly simple:
>
> What is the implementation advantage of making statement pooling
> part of the main driver? There are maintenance issues which count
> *against* it being part of the driver so you need to provide a good
> reason to include it.
>
Well, it has to be maintained regardless of where it is. So how does
that make any difference ?
> Packaging issues are IMO fairly irrelevant because if you must give
> a single package to your users, you can always take the base driver
> and a separate pooling wrapper, package them together, and say "Hey
> look here is the statement-pooling postgresql JDBC driver".
Dave
>
> -O
