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.
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