Thread: RFC: Removal of support for JDBC1 drivers.
Folks, We can't even get hold of a 1.1 JDK anymore. And it is preventing us from using the most basic stuff in the jdbc1 classes because they were introduced in 1.2. I am proposing we drop support for Java SDK 1.1 and JDBC1 altogether and keep only JDBC2 (for SDK 1.2 and SDK 1.3) and JDBC3 (for SDK 1.4). Concerns? P.S.: I even think support for 1.2 is not necessary. Does anyone know of a place where Java 1.2 is still being used? They must have a Java that old and still have a reasonably recent backend as the driver only support the last two previous versions (will be 7.2+ in the 7.4 release). -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
> > > P.S.: I even think support for 1.2 is not necessary. Does anyone know > of a place where Java 1.2 is still being used? They must have a Java > that old and still have a reasonably recent backend as the driver only > support the last two previous versions (will be 7.2+ in the 7.4 release). > > Me again :-) I am using jdk 1.2 :-) Not to actually run the app, but to compile it. The reason is that the format in which 1.3 and later reports compilation errors is totally insane - I can't even *read* it visually, leave alone trying to automatically parse it with something like vim :-) Dima
Dmitry Tkach wrote:>> >> >> P.S.: I even think support for 1.2 is not necessary. Does anyone know >> of a place where Java 1.2 is still being used? They must have a Java >> that old and still have a reasonably recent backend as the driver only >> support the last two previous versions (will be 7.2+ in the 7.4 release). >> >> > Me again :-) > > I am using jdk 1.2 :-) > Not to actually run the app, but to compile it. The reason is that the > format in which 1.3 and later reports compilation errors is totally > insane - I can't even *read* it visually, leave alone trying to > automatically parse it with something like vim :-) > OK, so I guess we will have to keep it at 1.2 for a little more. But this will only buy you some time as it will eventually have to go. -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
Just occurred to me... If someone needs some sort of flagging for features not supported in JDBC1 because they want to ensure portability or something we can still produce the JDBC1 driver but allowing Java 1.2 code to be used in it. Or add some flagger facility. Regards to all, Fernando Fernando Nasser wrote:> Folks, > > We can't even get hold of a 1.1 JDK anymore. And it is preventing us > from using the most basic stuff in the jdbc1 classes because they were > introduced in 1.2. > > I am proposing we drop support for Java SDK 1.1 and JDBC1 altogether and > keep only JDBC2 (for SDK 1.2 and SDK 1.3) and JDBC3 (for SDK 1.4). > > Concerns? > > > P.S.: I even think support for 1.2 is not necessary. Does anyone know > of a place where Java 1.2 is still being used? They must have a Java > that old and still have a reasonably recent backend as the driver only > support the last two previous versions (will be 7.2+ in the 7.4 release). > > -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
Fernando, Previously the argument for support of jdk1.1 has been applets. I doubt that this is true anymore. Dave On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 11:50, Fernando Nasser wrote: > Folks, > > We can't even get hold of a 1.1 JDK anymore. And it is preventing us from using > the most basic stuff in the jdbc1 classes because they were introduced in 1.2. > > I am proposing we drop support for Java SDK 1.1 and JDBC1 altogether and keep > only JDBC2 (for SDK 1.2 and SDK 1.3) and JDBC3 (for SDK 1.4). > > Concerns? > > > P.S.: I even think support for 1.2 is not necessary. Does anyone know of a > place where Java 1.2 is still being used? They must have a Java that old and > still have a reasonably recent backend as the driver only support the last two > previous versions (will be 7.2+ in the 7.4 release). -- Dave Cramer <Dave@micro-automation.net>
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:50:38AM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
>
> P.S.: I even think support for 1.2 is not necessary. Does anyone know of a
> place where Java 1.2 is still being used? They must have a Java that old
Yes. We have it in some isolated pockets. Significantly, it's what
Sun told us we ought to use on Solaris 7; so all the replication code
we used was heavily tested on JDK 1.2.2 and very little on 1.3
(although it seems to work with the latter).
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:50:38AM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote: > >>P.S.: I even think support for 1.2 is not necessary. Does anyone know of a >>place where Java 1.2 is still being used? They must have a Java that old > > > Yes. We have it in some isolated pockets. Significantly, it's what > Sun told us we ought to use on Solaris 7; so all the replication code > we used was heavily tested on JDK 1.2.2 and very little on 1.3 > (although it seems to work with the latter). > Very well, my current proposal is the removal (immediate) of support for 1.1 and JDBC1. Next release 7.5 we drop support for Java 1.2. One year from now it _must_ be dead (Solaris 7 probably will ;-). -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Fernando Nasser wrote: > Very well, my current proposal is the removal (immediate) of support for > 1.1 and JDBC1. > > Next release 7.5 we drop support for Java 1.2. One year from now it > _must_ be dead (Solaris 7 probably will ;-). I'm not sure what your desire to drop supportr for 1.2 is. In another thread you wanted to explicitly drop support for server versions. I understand the desire to get rid of 1.1 support as it is actively hindering development, but there is no need to go out of our way to remove support for older releases of java or postgresql. If we can make it work with a minimum of effort, let's do that. Let's not drop support for older versions for no reason. Kris Jurka
Kris Jurka wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Fernando Nasser wrote: > >>Very well, my current proposal is the removal (immediate) of support for >>1.1 and JDBC1. >> >>Next release 7.5 we drop support for Java 1.2. One year from now it >>_must_ be dead (Solaris 7 probably will ;-). > > > I'm not sure what your desire to drop supportr for 1.2 is. In another > thread you wanted to explicitly drop support for server versions. I > understand the desire to get rid of 1.1 support as it is actively > hindering development, but there is no need to go out of our way to remove > support for older releases of java or postgresql. If we can make it work > with a minimum of effort, let's do that. Let's not drop support for older > versions for no reason. > The driver policy is to support up to two backend versions behind. That has already been decided by the maintainers and is in force for a long time. (I agree with it by the way). If you need support for older versions you must save an old copy. I need to get rid of 1.1 (and eventually 1.2) because we cannot use any of the Java things added in newer versions of Java in the jdbc1 classes (which implement 90% of the driver). It is rather limiting being forced to use a subset of the language that Sun itself already recognized as insufficient (thus introducing the changes in 1.2 and 1.3). -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
Fernando Nasser wrote: > The driver policy is to support up to two backend versions behind. That > has already been decided by the maintainers and is in force for a long > time. (I agree with it by the way). If you need support for older > versions you must save an old copy. Will frozen versions of the outdated drivers be archived? Or do you really mean we should save a copy? Erik
Erik, All the old versions of the drivers are located on the jdbc.postgresql.org website. Drivers exist back to pre6.2 of the server. --Barry Erik Price wrote: > > > Fernando Nasser wrote: > >> The driver policy is to support up to two backend versions behind. >> That has already been decided by the maintainers and is in force for a >> long time. (I agree with it by the way). If you need support for >> older versions you must save an old copy. > > > Will frozen versions of the outdated drivers be archived? Or do you > really mean we should save a copy? > > > > > Erik > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org >