I have serious doubts about preprocessing and the preprocessing tool
maturity -- and I strongly feel the pgjdbc goes the wrong non-java way.
Was other possibilities for preprocessing considered? I've talked to java
guys (I'm not one, I just work on packaging pgjdbc plugin), but all the
guys told me that this is generally suboptimal java approach. Usually,
when C developer wants to use preprocessor, java guy should go the
sub-classing way.
From the latest *7 release, there has been added lot more preprocessor
constructs.
So is this really wanted? I haven't had time to study the background
carefully.
Pavel
On Friday 27 of November 2015 06:41:16 Dave Cramer wrote:
> That's awesome. Very minimal preprocessing then.
>
> Dave Cramer
>
> On 27 November 2015 at 09:39, Vladimir Sitnikov <notifications@github.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm a bit surprised, however I had to do *no*
> > modifications/pre-processing to support jdk6.
> > So, the only pre-processing required so far is commenting usage of SQLType
> > for java8.
> >
> > —
> > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> > <https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/435#issuecomment-160152281>.
> >
>
>
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/435#issuecomment-160152501