Thread: Re: [HACKERS] Mapping Oracle types to PostgreSQL types
On Sat, 2003-10-18 at 09:11, Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
> Dear Jean-Paul,
>
> > Please tell me if my experience can help you in any way, I'd be really
> > glad in participating your project.
>
> Thanks for your proposal, welcome in the team.
>
> In short, we plan to port Compiere to PostgreSQL and submit the changes back
> to Compiere team. There is no evidence so far that Compiere will accept the
> changes as their main developer sells Oracle licenses.
>
> At present, the team is:
> - Vincent Harcq <vha@audaxis.com> for the Java part or Compiere.
> - Jean-Paul ARGUDO <jpargudo@free.fr> and Jean-Michel Pouré <jm@poure.com> for
> the database migration.
>
> > I can offer public CVS, web, etc.. for the project if you want.
>
> Thanks. During the week-end, I will set up a first web page and will contact
> you back on Monday.
>
> In a first time, our goal could be to describe the port in details, so to
> convince Compiere community to migrate to PostgreSQL. Without support from
> the Compiere community, there can be no port...
>
by "community" do you means users or developers? there are certainly
enough users interested in a postgresql version that i think it would be
viable to fork it if the compiere developers aren't willing to
cooperate. certainly would be more work, but if you could get a stable
version I think it could be successful.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: >On Sat, 2003-10-18 at 09:11, Jean-Michel POURE wrote: > > >>Dear Jean-Paul, >> >> >> >>>Please tell me if my experience can help you in any way, I'd be really >>>glad in participating your project. >>> >>> >>Thanks for your proposal, welcome in the team. >> >>In short, we plan to port Compiere to PostgreSQL and submit the changes back >>to Compiere team. There is no evidence so far that Compiere will accept the >>changes as their main developer sells Oracle licenses. >> >>At present, the team is: >>- Vincent Harcq <vha@audaxis.com> for the Java part or Compiere. >>- Jean-Paul ARGUDO <jpargudo@free.fr> and Jean-Michel Pouré <jm@poure.com> for >>the database migration. >> >> >> >>>I can offer public CVS, web, etc.. for the project if you want. >>> >>> >>Thanks. During the week-end, I will set up a first web page and will contact >>you back on Monday. >> >>In a first time, our goal could be to describe the port in details, so to >>convince Compiere community to migrate to PostgreSQL. Without support from >>the Compiere community, there can be no port... >> >> >> > >by "community" do you means users or developers? there are certainly >enough users interested in a postgresql version that i think it would be >viable to fork it if the compiere developers aren't willing to >cooperate. certainly would be more work, but if you could get a stable >version I think it could be successful. > >Robert Treat > > I'll be happy if I can help you. I test Compiere since june and I asked compiere what to do in order to port compiere to postgres and never receive answer. But I think they accept this solution because they have an old version with postgres and they know somebody running Compiere with another database (adabas ? DB2 ? I don't remember) Bruno -- Bruno LEVEQUE System Engineer SARL NET6D bruno.leveque@net6d.com http://www.net6d.com
Le Lundi 20 Octobre 2003 14:52, Robert Treat a écrit : > by "community" do you means users or developers? there are certainly > enough users interested in a postgresql version that i think it would be > viable to fork it if the compiere developers aren't willing to > cooperate. certainly would be more work, but if you could get a stable > version I think it could be successful. Dear Robert, At first, the project has limited goals: porting Compiere PL server-side code to PLpgSQL, removing some non-SQL 99 stuff and submitting the code back and convincing Compiere developer community to use PostgreSQL. Then, we will see. The problem with forking is that you have to create a developer community from scratch, which is highly difficult and most of times impossible. Best regards, Jean-Michel
Vincent, > >>In short, we plan to port Compiere to PostgreSQL and submit the changes > >> back to Compiere team. There is no evidence so far that Compiere will > >> accept the changes as their main developer sells Oracle licenses. Please port it. Compiere's dependence on Oracle has prevented me from evaluating it for my clients. I'll be happy to provide advice/patches down the line; I have some experience with accounting databases. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Le Lundi 20 Octobre 2003 17:22, Bruno LEVEQUE a écrit : > I'll be happy if I can help you. I test Compiere since june and I asked > compiere what to do in order to port compiere to postgres and never > receive answer. But I think they accept this solution because they have > an old version with postgres and they know somebody running Compiere > with another database (adabas ? DB2 ? I don't remember) I received identical remarks from other people. The developer of Compiere sells Oracle licenses. Maybe he lives on it... Let's do the port and then we will see. Bruno, I am adding you to the list of interested people and will publish a web page today. Cheers, Jean-Michel
Jean-Michel POURE wrote: > Le Lundi 20 Octobre 2003 17:22, Bruno LEVEQUE a ?crit : > > I'll be happy if I can help you. I test Compiere since june and I asked > > compiere what to do in order to port compiere to postgres and never > > receive answer. But I think they accept this solution because they have > > an old version with postgres and they know somebody running Compiere > > with another database (adabas ? DB2 ? I ?don't remember) > > I received identical remarks from other people. The developer of Compiere > sells Oracle licenses. Maybe he lives on it... Let's do the port and then we > will see. > > Bruno, I am adding you to the list of interested people and will publish a web > page today. My guess is that an appeal to the broader Compiere user community would sway their thinking. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Hi guys, Jorg Janke (the "main" Compiere person) and I had a brief dicussion last year. Pretty much he asked if PostgreSQL (either the company and/or the community) would be interested in _making PostgreSQL compatible with Compiere_ or if not, then how about we and _make and maintain_ a fork of PostgreSQL that did the right kind of transaction support to work Compiere. The return for doing that would have been for PostgreSQL to the be Compiere "default" (recommended) database. Pointed out to him that it was unlikely to happen from the Community's point of view, but if there could be a good case made for it from a profitability point of view then it wouldn't hurt to consider it as far as a company-done-thing. For this to occur, we needed statistics of how many end user installations of Compiere there are, and then we'd try and use that to get a realistic idea of market demand for PostgreSQL and PostgreSQL services from that, etc. (i.e. decent common sense to start with) Jorg absolutely refused to co-operate. The only information he was willing to provide was to point at the number of downloads. Suggested to him that it would likely be worth putting some kind of "installation" counting measures in places so we could at least get an idea of real world terms, but instead he just got offended that the download counter wasn't enough. (and I was *Really* super nice in my approach here, trying to suggest getting information that *any* place would have found absolutely necessary at a very minimum in order to proceed) No dice. Spoke to a few others, and they had the same opinion of that situation - *not business practical* (especially with an unfriendly requestor). That being said, if this effort to get Compiere and PostgreSQL working does happen successfully, then all the better. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift Bruce Momjian wrote: > Jean-Michel POURE wrote: > >>Le Lundi 20 Octobre 2003 17:22, Bruno LEVEQUE a ?crit : >> >>>I'll be happy if I can help you. I test Compiere since june and I asked >>>compiere what to do in order to port compiere to postgres and never >>>receive answer. But I think they accept this solution because they have >>>an old version with postgres and they know somebody running Compiere >>>with another database (adabas ? DB2 ? I ?don't remember) >> >>I received identical remarks from other people. The developer of Compiere >>sells Oracle licenses. Maybe he lives on it... Let's do the port and then we >>will see. >> >>Bruno, I am adding you to the list of interested people and will publish a web >>page today. > > > My guess is that an appeal to the broader Compiere user community would > sway their thinking. >
Justin Clift wrote: > Hi guys, > > Jorg Janke (the "main" Compiere person) and I had a brief dicussion last > year. > > Pretty much he asked if PostgreSQL (either the company and/or the > community) would be interested in _making PostgreSQL compatible with > Compiere_ or if not, then how about we and _make and maintain_ a fork of > PostgreSQL that did the right kind of transaction support to work > Compiere. The return for doing that would have been for PostgreSQL to > the be Compiere "default" (recommended) database. It is hard to understand that if he is willing to make PostgreSQL the default for Compiere, why he would refuse to include any changes to allow Oracle and PostgreSQL to both work. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Justin Clift wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > Jorg Janke (the "main" Compiere person) and I had a brief dicussion last > > year. > > > > Pretty much he asked if PostgreSQL (either the company and/or the > > community) would be interested in _making PostgreSQL compatible with > > Compiere_ or if not, then how about we and _make and maintain_ a fork of > > PostgreSQL that did the right kind of transaction support to work > > Compiere. The return for doing that would have been for PostgreSQL to > > the be Compiere "default" (recommended) database. > > It is hard to understand that if he is willing to make PostgreSQL the > default for Compiere, why he would refuse to include any changes to > allow Oracle and PostgreSQL to both work. But if what he wants is nested transactions, then I could see him paying for development providing better ROI than forking the code. Is that what was meant by "the right kind of transaction support" ?
Scott, > > It is hard to understand that if he is willing to make PostgreSQL the > > default for Compiere, why he would refuse to include any changes to > > allow Oracle and PostgreSQL to both work. > > But if what he wants is nested transactions, then I could see him paying > for development providing better ROI than forking the code. Is that what > was meant by "the right kind of transaction support" ? If he wanted nested transactions, and was willing to pay for development, I can't imagine us turning him down. Nested xtn have been on the TODO list for years. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 17:00, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Scott,
>
> > > It is hard to understand that if he is willing to make PostgreSQL the
> > > default for Compiere, why he would refuse to include any changes to
> > > allow Oracle and PostgreSQL to both work.
> >
> > But if what he wants is nested transactions, then I could see him paying
> > for development providing better ROI than forking the code. Is that what
> > was meant by "the right kind of transaction support" ?
>
> If he wanted nested transactions, and was willing to pay for development, I
> can't imagine us turning him down. Nested xtn have been on the TODO list for
> years.
>
I think his (his being the compiere guy) point was that if someone in
the postgresql community wanted to implement some of the more difficult
features into postgresql that he would make it the default db for
compiere. however he tried himself to raise funds to make it happen and
he could not, so it's on the postgresql community to make it happen
now.
The big question as I see it is whether he is willing to make
incremental steps to make compiere more postgresql compatible if it
might hurt the oracle side (the nvarchar2 to varchar data type change is
a good example of this). If he is willing to make these changes then all
is good, if not then istm that a fork would be the likely outcome.
course, its a lot of speculation and discussion that should probably
happen on the compiere lists, they have discussed this issue before and
would do so again, and as bruce said, getting the compiere community
support is the first step.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
scott.marlowe wrote: > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Justin Clift wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > Jorg Janke (the "main" Compiere person) and I had a brief dicussion last > > > year. > > > > > > Pretty much he asked if PostgreSQL (either the company and/or the > > > community) would be interested in _making PostgreSQL compatible with > > > Compiere_ or if not, then how about we and _make and maintain_ a fork of > > > PostgreSQL that did the right kind of transaction support to work > > > Compiere. The return for doing that would have been for PostgreSQL to > > > the be Compiere "default" (recommended) database. > > > > It is hard to understand that if he is willing to make PostgreSQL the > > default for Compiere, why he would refuse to include any changes to > > allow Oracle and PostgreSQL to both work. > > But if what he wants is nested transactions, then I could see him paying > for development providing better ROI than forking the code. Is that what > was meant by "the right kind of transaction support" ? Oh, that makes complete sense. You can't really code around the lack of nested transactions, at least not cleanly. Let's get nested transactions and go back to them. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Hi Scott, scott.marlowe wrote: <snip> > > But if what he wants is nested transactions, then I could see him paying > for development providing better ROI than forking the code. Is that what > was meant by "the right kind of transaction support" ? Yep, that's what was needed. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift