On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 08:13 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> That said, I do support adding this in the future, if only to keep up
> >> with the Jones'.
> > So are the ones out there *already* even compatible, before we start
> > adding our own? For example, for JDBC I beleive it has to be
> > jdbc:postgresql://blahblah... Even if you can say the jdbc part is
> > protocol specific, the example quoted by JD had pgsql://. How many
> > other combinations can we find already out in the wild, and how do we
> > pick which one to use in this case?
> >
>
>
> Of course they aren't compatible. So we solve that by just adding to the
> soup!
Well I would argue that if compatibility (as opposed to familiarity) is
our goal, we need to focus on one and only one syntax, JDBC. It doesn't
matter our particular bent, JDBC is the one that is in the most use.
If we can agree on syntax we want to support, I would put efforts into
working a patch.
JD
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt