On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:02:59 -0500, Sehrope Sarkuni <sehrope@jackdb.com>
wrote:
> Why doesn't the JDK 8 version of the Maven artifact for the driver
include
> the .jre8 suffix?
>
> Here's what's currently on the main README:
>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.postgresql</groupId>
> <artifactId>postgresql</artifactId>
> <version>9.4.1207</version> <!-- Java 8 -->
> <version>9.4.1207.jre7</version> <!-- Java 7 -->
> <version>9.4.1207.jre6</version> <!-- Java 6 -->
> </dependency>
>
>
> The other versions are JDK version suffixed and at some point there will
be
> a JDK 9. Why not name it X.jre8 so that we're ready for when that day
> comes?
I agree. Having one unsuffixed is confusing.
> Somewhat related, is it possible for more than one JDBC release to come
out
> for the same JDK version or will that not happen anymore?
That is not possible with the current way of working. The JDBC API is part
of the Java SE API and can only change together with a new Java SE version;
changing that would likely break a lot of things ;)
> If so, we'd be better off naming the releases off the JDBC version (ex:
> 9.4.127.jdbc42). Each JDBC version already has a min supported JDK
version
> associated with it (ex: JDBC 4.2 requires JDK 8+) so it's super set of
> tracking JDK versions. Then again, if the days of JDBC updates out of
band
> from JDK updates are gone, it's just extra noise/confusion (vs. tracking
> against the JDK version).
As far as I know JDBC has never been updated out of band (maybe with the
exception of the JDBC 2 Extensions, although I believe that was also part
of Java 1.3).