On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 01:02:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> PL/Java will improve the visibility of PL/Java to people who won't go
> looking for it. That's fine, but ultimately that's a packaging argument
> not a development argument. The people who think PL/Java is an
> essential checklist item undoubtedly also think JDBC is an essential
> checklist item, but I'm not seeing any groundswell of support for
> putting JDBC back into core. Instead we expect packagers (like the RPM
> set) to make JDBC available alongside the core postgres packages.
> That's how PL/Java ought to be handled, too, IMHO.
JDBC is different, in that it doesn't require the PostgreSQL core to
build. It's 100% native Java, and as such, I see benefit to it being
distributed separately.
This is why I was thinking that the problem is that the backend (SPI?)
API isn't exposed as native methods in the required languages. If just
the SPI API was exposed from the core to the languages, the
maintenance effort and size should be less, and the add-ons would not
require that they be built with the PostgreSQL core, making it easy to
integrate them after the fact.
If this is just crazy talk - please stop me.
Cheers,
mark
--
mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness
bindthem...
http://mark.mielke.cc/