libpqxx - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject libpqxx
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0208111952180.10067-100000@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: libpqxx  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
We still haven't really decided what to do about libpqxx.  The only
argument I've heard so far against distributing it separately is that it
would induce users to use libpq++ instead.  I think having both libraries
in the distribution is going to be even more confusing, especially since
one is "old and well-tested" and one is brand new.

The problem I see now is that libpqxx has a completely different build
system and documentation system.  This is also not going to help users
find and use it and it's also going to be a maintenance headache.  I don't
necessarily want libpqxx to change it, but I feel it would be better off
maintained separately.  I wouldn't mind if we package libpq++ separately
as well and tell users that we have these two libraries and they can pick
one.  And before someone suggests an --enable-libpqxx option:  That's not
the solution to these problems, it's only a way to hide them.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Florian Weimer
Date:
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] DoS attack on backend possible (was: Re:
Next
From: Justin Clift
Date:
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] DoS attack on backend possible (was: Re: