Обсуждение: statement caching link on jdbc page
Where is the best place to put the link to the statement caching driver ? Dave
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Dave Cramer wrote: > Where is the best place to put the link to the statement caching driver ? > Not sure there's a great place at the moment. What about adding an "Extras" section to the left side navigation, perhaps below downloads? On the extras page you could have a brief description of available things and a link to the jdbccache project. At the moment I'm not sure where that link would go though as the jdbccache project[1] is pretty bare. Are you envisioning adding documentation on its configuration and use to the main jdbc website or to the jdbccache pgfoundry page[2]? Kris Jurka 1) http://pgfoundry.org/projects/jdbccache 2) http://jdbccache.projects.postgresql.org/
Kris Jurka wrote: >> Where is the best place to put the link to the statement caching driver ? > > Not sure there's a great place at the moment. What about adding an > "Extras" section to the left side navigation, perhaps below downloads? The download section is not particulary easy to understand at the moment, unless you already know which version you want. I thought about a different structure for it, and have some ideas. Will see that i get a dummy page done this evening, if you are interested. Till
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Till Toenges wrote: > The download section is not particulary easy to understand at the moment, > unless you already know which version you want. I thought about a different > structure for it, and have some ideas. Will see that i get a dummy page done > this evening, if you are interested. > I'm not opposed to reorganizing, but please keep in mind that the site is generated by Apache Forrest, not hand coded html. So changes should ideally work within that framework. Kris Jurka
Kris Jurka wrote: > > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Dave Cramer wrote: > >> Where is the best place to put the link to the statement caching >> driver ? >> > > Not sure there's a great place at the moment. What about adding an > "Extras" section to the left side navigation, perhaps below > downloads? On the extras page you could have a brief description of > available things and a link to the jdbccache project. That would be good, we need a link to the actual jar for downloading > At the moment I'm not sure where that link would go though as the > jdbccache project[1] is pretty bare. Are you envisioning adding > documentation on its configuration and use to the main jdbc website or > to the jdbccache pgfoundry page[2]? > Yes, the intent is to put documentation on the jdbccache page Dave > Kris Jurka > > 1) http://pgfoundry.org/projects/jdbccache > 2) http://jdbccache.projects.postgresql.org/ > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster >
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Dave Cramer wrote: > Kris Jurka wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Dave Cramer wrote: >> >>> Where is the best place to put the link to the statement caching driver ? >>> >> >> Not sure there's a great place at the moment. What about adding an >> "Extras" section to the left side navigation, perhaps below downloads? On >> the extras page you could have a brief description of available things and >> a link to the jdbccache project. > That would be good, we need a link to the actual jar for downloading I've put this up for the moment: http://jdbc.postgresql.org/extras.html Kris Jurka
Hey Kris, Thanks!! Dave Kris Jurka wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Dave Cramer wrote: > >> Kris Jurka wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Dave Cramer wrote: >>> >>>> Where is the best place to put the link to the statement caching >>>> driver ? >>>> >>> >>> Not sure there's a great place at the moment. What about adding an >>> "Extras" section to the left side navigation, perhaps below >>> downloads? On the extras page you could have a brief description of >>> available things and a link to the jdbccache project. >> That would be good, we need a link to the actual jar for downloading > > I've put this up for the moment: > > http://jdbc.postgresql.org/extras.html > > Kris Jurka > >
Kris Jurka wrote: >> The download section is not particulary easy to understand at the >> moment, unless you already know which version you want. I thought >> about a different structure for it, and have some ideas. Will see that >> i get a dummy page done this evening, if you are interested. > > I'm not opposed to reorganizing, but please keep in mind that the site > is generated by Apache Forrest, not hand coded html. So changes should > ideally work within that framework. Ok, didn't find the time that evening. But now i made dummy showing my idea for the download page. It's not a big change, but i think it is a bit easier to understand. I added a new section "Download Current Version" below the "About" section. The idea behind this is that most people will be interested only in one or two versions. In the dummy only one link to the current JDBC 3 version is included, the download statistics should show which other versions are popular enough to be included here. This is also a convenient place to link to the extras page, with a short description of what else is available. This way, the extras will be more prominently displayed, and more people will find them. Below that comes the section "Other Versions", which mostly consists of the former text. This is below the current version download, because it is not particulary interesting if you just want to get one of the popular current drivers. The table at the end is the same as before. Could be split up in "Development Versions", "Archived Versions" and "Source Downloads" tables if it gets too crowded, but it's ok for now. That's it. Nothing big, but maybe easier for the "average first time downloaders" and those who just want to update their driver to the current version. Is that ok for you? Any ideas? Lots of spleing errors? Forrest document follows if you like it and there are no more changes. Till
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Till Toenges wrote: > I added a new section "Download Current Version" below the "About" section. > The idea behind this is that most people will be interested only in one or > two versions. In the dummy only one link to the current JDBC 3 version is > included, the download statistics should show which other versions are > popular enough to be included here. I think this is a good idea, but I would include a link to JDBC4 as well because despite our poor support it is the way of the future. > This is also a convenient place to link to the extras page, with a short > description of what else is available. This way, the extras will be more > prominently displayed, and more people will find them. I hoping we fold in the copy stuff so that disappears and until we have some actual documentation/experience with the statement caching version, I'm not sure how prominently I would like to promote it. > The table at the end is the same as before. Could be split up in "Development > Versions", "Archived Versions" and "Source Downloads" tables if it gets too > crowded, but it's ok for now. Yeah, since we don't even maintain 7.X anymore, mentioning 6.X and 0.2 is a little pointless. Kris Jurka
Kris Jurka wrote: > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Till Toenges wrote: > >> I added a new section "Download Current Version" below the "About" >> section. The idea behind this is that most people will be interested >> only in one or two versions. In the dummy only one link to the current >> JDBC 3 version is included, the download statistics should show which >> other versions are popular enough to be included here. > > I think this is a good idea, but I would include a link to JDBC4 as well > because despite our poor support it is the way of the future. It'd be nice to have just a single version in the "Current version" section. Could we have just the JDBC4 version there? Does it work with older JDKs? Would be nice to have a bit more details on which JDK versions each jar works with. >> This is also a convenient place to link to the extras page, with a >> short description of what else is available. This way, the extras will >> be more prominently displayed, and more people will find them. > > I hoping we fold in the copy stuff so that disappears and until we have > some actual documentation/experience with the statement caching version, > I'm not sure how prominently I would like to promote it. Agreed, let's rather try to get the copy stuff merged. >> The table at the end is the same as before. Could be split up in >> "Development Versions", "Archived Versions" and "Source Downloads" >> tables if it gets too crowded, but it's ok for now. > > Yeah, since we don't even maintain 7.X anymore, mentioning 6.X and 0.2 > is a little pointless. Splitting maintained and no longer maintained versions into separate tables is a good idea. As it is, there's no mention that the older versions are not maintained. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Heikki,
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
You cannot compile a newer JDBC with an old compiler since the interfaces are not implemented ( among other things ) , and the newer jars cannot be run with older JRE's
We didn't go to all the trouble of making it really hard to understand for the sake of obsfucation.
Dave
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
No, it doesn't work with older JDK's. Here is the problem. The class file structures have changed with newer versions, and cannot be read by older JRE'sKris Jurka wrote:On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Till Toenges wrote:I added a new section "Download Current Version" below the "About" section. The idea behind this is that most people will be interested only in one or two versions. In the dummy only one link to the current JDBC 3 version is included, the download statistics should show which other versions are popular enough to be included here.I think this is a good idea, but I would include a link to JDBC4 as well because despite our poor support it is the way of the future.It'd be nice to have just a single version in the "Current version" section. Could we have just the JDBC4 version there? Does it work with older JDKs? Would be nice to have a bit more details on which JDK versions each jar works with.
You cannot compile a newer JDBC with an old compiler since the interfaces are not implemented ( among other things ) , and the newer jars cannot be run with older JRE's
We didn't go to all the trouble of making it really hard to understand for the sake of obsfucation.
Dave
This is also a convenient place to link to the extras page, with a short description of what else is available. This way, the extras will be more prominently displayed, and more people will find them.I hoping we fold in the copy stuff so that disappears and until we have some actual documentation/experience with the statement caching version, I'm not sure how prominently I would like to promote it.Agreed, let's rather try to get the copy stuff merged.The table at the end is the same as before. Could be split up in "Development Versions", "Archived Versions" and "Source Downloads" tables if it gets too crowded, but it's ok for now.Yeah, since we don't even maintain 7.X anymore, mentioning 6.X and 0.2 is a little pointless.Splitting maintained and no longer maintained versions into separate tables is a good idea. As it is, there's no mention that the older versions are not maintained.
Dave Cramer wrote: > No, it doesn't work with older JDK's. Here is the problem. The class > file structures have changed with newer versions, and cannot be read by > older JRE's > > You cannot compile a newer JDBC with an old compiler since the > interfaces are not implemented ( among other things ) , and the newer > jars cannot be run with older JRE's Could you use the JDK 1.6 compiler with "javac -target 1.5"? -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
It might be possible, not sure.
Dave
You have some control over the class compatibility, but not over the interface which is provided by the jdk library.Dave Cramer wrote:No, it doesn't work with older JDK's. Here is the problem. The class file structures have changed with newer versions, and cannot be read by older JRE's You cannot compile a newer JDBC with an old compiler since the interfaces are not implemented ( among other things ) , and the newer jars cannot be run with older JRE'sCould you use the JDK 1.6 compiler with "javac -target 1.5"?
It might be possible, not sure.
Dave
Kris Jurka wrote: > I think this is a good idea, but I would include a link to JDBC4 as well > because despite our poor support it is the way of the future. Ok. > I hoping we fold in the copy stuff so that disappears and until we have > some actual documentation/experience with the statement caching version, > I'm not sure how prominently I would like to promote it. I reduced that to just mentioning the extras page. Or should i remove it completely? > Yeah, since we don't even maintain 7.X anymore, mentioning 6.X and 0.2 > is a little pointless. There are two tables now, supported versions and archived versions. Is the split ok? Till
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Till Toenges wrote: >> I think this is a good idea, but I would include a link to JDBC4 as well >> because despite our poor support it is the way of the future. > > Ok. While our support of JDBC4 is poor the JDBC4 driver at least does better than the JDBC3 driver, so I've downplayed the JDBC4 weakness here and simply mentioned which applies to which JVM. >> I hoping we fold in the copy stuff so that disappears and until we have >> some actual documentation/experience with the statement caching version, >> I'm not sure how prominently I would like to promote it. > > I reduced that to just mentioning the extras page. Or should i remove it > completely? I've taken it out for the moment. If we don't get copy into the 8.3 release, or the caching driver generates some quality documentation and an audience we can reconsider mentioning it, but for now we'll wait. >> Yeah, since we don't even maintain 7.X anymore, mentioning 6.X and 0.2 is a >> little pointless. > > There are two tables now, supported versions and archived versions. Is the > split ok? > Looks good, current version here: http://jdbc.postgresql.org/download.html Kris Jurka
Jurka, > Looks good, current version here: > > http://jdbc.postgresql.org/download.html > > Kris Jurka *much* clearer. The caching version has disappeared again, though. --Josh
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Looks good, current version here: >> >> http://jdbc.postgresql.org/download.html >> > > The caching version has disappeared again, though. > Well the caching version has not been looked at by anyone other than Dave and Laszlo, so to be honest I have no idea if it even works. There is also zero documentation telling people how to configure it. When the caching wrapper gets some review, some use and some documentation I'll gladly promote it, but for the moment I don't think it should be one of the first things we push to users. Kris Jurka