Re: Status of JDBC Interface

Peter Mount writes:

> 1) ANT vs Make

> I suggest we keep supporting both methods for now to see how people get on.

If you're confident about ANT is suggest that you dump the make interface
because otherwise you increase the possible failure scenarios at the
install level alone in combinatorial ways.

What's a bit sad about the JDBC subtree is that it doesn't follow the
build system conventions in the rest of the tree.  For example, I would
really like to be able to do this:

./configure ... --with-java[=/usr/local/j2sdk1.3.0]
make
make install

This wouldn't only make it easier on users, but many more people would
perhaps be exposed to the fact that there's a JDBC driver in the tree at
all.

I have on and off had some ideas about autoconfiscating the JDBC build but
I'm glad I didn't do it since this Ant thing seems to be much better.
But it would still be desirable to have a make wrapper since that is what
people are accustomed to.

Btw., how does Ant choose the JDK it uses if I have three or four
installed at random places?  (This is perhaps yet another source of
problems, if make and ant use different JDKs by default.)

> 2) Versioning

> one location. Also as suggested on the Hackers list Make now extracts the
> version from Makefile.global. This works fine for Make, but there are two
> problems.
>
> First, ANT can't read this easily. This isn't that major, but the second one
> is. I've had reports that some people checkout just the interfaces, and not
> the entire source, so Makefile.global is not available.

Just checking out interfaces is not advertised AFAIK and it definitely
doesn't work for anything but the JDBC driver.

OTOH, nothing is stopping you from inventing your own versioning scheme
for the driver only.  Several other things in the tree do this as well
(PyGreSql, PgAccess).

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/