On 5-Sep-07, at 12:21 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> I understand why it's a wrapper. I don't understand why the
>> wrapper isn't at
>> jdbc.postgresql.org. Putting it on pgfoundry, completely separate
>> from all
>> the JDBC drivers, is pretty much a guarentee that nobody will ever
>> download
>> it.
>
The drivers will end up there eventually anyway.
And we can link it to the jdbc home page.
Dave
> I don't have a problem with linking from jdbc.postgresql.org to the
> wrapper. And other pooling and caching implementations as well while
> you're at it.
>
>> Just so everyone is clear on why this is important & urgent ... we
>> published a
>> benchmark[1] using the caching driver, which is the only published
>> benchmark
>> PostgreSQL has. This benchmark has generated a huge amount of
>> interest in
>> PostgreSQL as an alternative to Oracle[2], and is very important
>> to driving
>> the adoption of PostgreSQL *especially* amoung J2EE developers.
>> So it would
>> be nice to see the caching wrapper represented as "official"
>> unless there's
>> something technically wrong with it.
>
> Can't you use DBCP or some other open source statement cache
> implementation that's in a more mature state? Or actually, why
> don't you
> have a statement cache in Sun Application Server like the
> competitors? ;-)
>
> --
> Heikki Linnakangas
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org