Yes, the README does need updating. CHANGELOG should be up to date. If
not, I'll have to re-commit it.

I'm hoping to have the next three evenings free...

Peter

-- 
Peter Mount
Enterprise Support
Maidstone Borough Council
Any views stated are my own, and not those of Maidstone Borough Council.



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Lockhart [mailto:lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 6:16 AM
To: Lamar Owen; Bruce Momjian; PostgreSQL-development;
PostgreSQL-interfaces; peter@retep.org.uk
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status


> otoh, how close are you Peter (hope you see this; I've blown away
> enough email to have lost your address) to posting a built jar file or
> whatever is usually provided? Should we post this somewhere on
> postgresql.org to help out? Should I post my recently built stuff?

Ah, found Peter's e-mail address in an obvious place (the jdbc source
tree).

Another question for Peter: would it be possible to update the README
file in the source tree, and other ancillary files? I know you've been
very busy, but even a brief fixup to adjust dates and version numbers
would be helpful for 7.0.

                      - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Tue, 2 May 2000 09:11:08 +0100 
Peter Mount <petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk>
RE: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
> Yes, the README does need updating. CHANGELOG should be up to date. If
> not, I'll have to re-commit it.
> 
> I'm hoping to have the next three evenings free...

Not to bug you Peter, but 7.0 may not wait three days before release. 

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Tue, 2 May 2000 07:02:29 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
> Not to bug you Peter, but 7.0 may not wait three days before release.

I would vote that this is important enough that it should wait, but no
one has raised the issue until now so we haven't discussed it. The
docs may or may not be completed within the next day (still jet-lagged
from vacation, but waking up at 3am does leave some extra time in the
morning, eh?), and if they stretch an extra day which is certainly
possible then we are only talking about an extra day for this. No big
deal in the grand scheme of things...

Peter, is there some testing that could/should be done with the new
driver (by others) in the meantime, or is it pretty likely to be
reasonably hashed out?

                     - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Tue, 02 May 2000 11:15:46 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
> > Not to bug you Peter, but 7.0 may not wait three days before release.
> 
> I would vote that this is important enough that it should wait, but no
> one has raised the issue until now so we haven't discussed it. The
> docs may or may not be completed within the next day (still jet-lagged
> from vacation, but waking up at 3am does leave some extra time in the
> morning, eh?), and if they stretch an extra day which is certainly
> possible then we are only talking about an extra day for this. No big
> deal in the grand scheme of things...
> 
> Peter, is there some testing that could/should be done with the new
> driver (by others) in the meantime, or is it pretty likely to be
> reasonably hashed out?

Just to add to my earlier report, here is the kaffe 1.05 compile
failure. What strikes me as odd is that Connection.java complains
because it can't find org/postgresql/Field, but if I try to compile
Field.java complains it can't find Connection.java.

Now, having the 6.5.3 JAR file, I can compile the 6.5.3 postgresql java
driver because I have the jar file to back up the unreferenced symbols. 
The 7.0 driver uses org.postgresql, which is not in the 6.5.3 JAR file,
so it fails.

The java IRC channel says kaffe isn't very good, so maybe I shouldn't be
worried about it.  They also said mutually-referencing java files are
not a good either.

Seems I may be able to modify the import lines in the java file to use
the 6.5.3 JAR file to get enough files compiled to compile the rest,
then recompile the entire thing.

Using the jar file compiled with Sun java works fine.  I can connect to
the database and run my program.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

#$ gmake jdbc2
(echo "package org.postgresql;" ;\
 echo "public class DriverClass {" ;\
 echo "public static String connectClass=\"org.postgresql.jdbc2.Connection\";" ;\
 echo "}" \
) >org/postgresql/DriverClass.java
gmake[1]: Entering directory `/var/local/src/pgsql/CURRENT/pgsql/src/interfaces/jdbc'
javac -g org/postgresql/DriverClass.java
javac -g org/postgresql/Connection.java
org/postgresql/Connection.java:1: Can''t find class "org/postgresql/Field" �8
org/postgresql/Connection.java:529: Can''t find class "Fastpath" �8
gmake[1]: *** [org/postgresql/Connection.class] Error 1
gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/var/local/src/pgsql/CURRENT/pgsql/src/interfaces/jdbc'
gmake: *** [jdbc2] Error 2


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Tue, 2 May 2000 07:40:39 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>> Not to bug you Peter, but 7.0 may not wait three days before release.

> I would vote that this is important enough that it should wait, but no
> one has raised the issue until now so we haven't discussed it.

My two cents: I wouldn't object to postponing release a day or so for
it, *but* if what we're getting is an un-beta-tested driver then my
level of enthusiasm drops considerably.  I'd rather say "it'll get
fixed in 7.0.1, after a decent testing interval for the new driver".

Relevant question: how well does the JDBC code that's in CVS now
work with 7.0?  If the answer is "hardly at all" then a new driver
is probably better even if it has lurking bugs.  If the answer is
"pretty well" then again I'd be inclined to ship what we've got.

			regards, tom lane

Tue, 02 May 2000 12:02:04 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status 
At 12:02 PM 5/2/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

>Relevant question: how well does the JDBC code that's in CVS now
>work with 7.0?  If the answer is "hardly at all" then a new driver
>is probably better even if it has lurking bugs.  If the answer is
>"pretty well" then again I'd be inclined to ship what we've got.

One of our OpenACS (until recently ACS/pg) crew has gotten the
ArsDigita webmail software running with PG7.0 and JDBC, apparently
without problems.

I don't know which beta he's running, though...



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
  Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
  http://donb.photo.net.

Tue, 02 May 2000 09:23:07 -0700
Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status 
> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> >> Not to bug you Peter, but 7.0 may not wait three days before release.
> 
> > I would vote that this is important enough that it should wait, but no
> > one has raised the issue until now so we haven't discussed it.
> 
> My two cents: I wouldn't object to postponing release a day or so for
> it, *but* if what we're getting is an un-beta-tested driver then my
> level of enthusiasm drops considerably.  I'd rather say "it'll get
> fixed in 7.0.1, after a decent testing interval for the new driver".
> 
> Relevant question: how well does the JDBC code that's in CVS now
> work with 7.0?  If the answer is "hardly at all" then a new driver
> is probably better even if it has lurking bugs.  If the answer is
> "pretty well" then again I'd be inclined to ship what we've got.

As far as I know, no one has it yet, except Thomas.  The driver must
have a domain of org.postgresql or it is the old version.  Only since I
installed Peter's Makefile last week did it become install-able.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Tue, 2 May 2000 12:43:03 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Relevant question: how well does the JDBC code that's in CVS now
>> work with 7.0?  If the answer is "hardly at all" then a new driver
>> is probably better even if it has lurking bugs.  If the answer is
>> "pretty well" then again I'd be inclined to ship what we've got.

> As far as I know, no one has it yet, except Thomas.  The driver must
> have a domain of org.postgresql or it is the old version.  Only since I
> installed Peter's Makefile last week did it become install-able.

So the version currently in CVS has seen hardly any testing either?
Man, you really know how to make a guy feel comfortable :-(

Given that, we might as well let Peter have the extra day or two
to bring the CVS version to the best state he can.

			regards, tom lane

Tue, 02 May 2000 13:27:42 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status 
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Relevant question: how well does the JDBC code that's in CVS now
> >> work with 7.0?  If the answer is "hardly at all" then a new driver
> >> is probably better even if it has lurking bugs.  If the answer is
> >> "pretty well" then again I'd be inclined to ship what we've got.
> 
> > As far as I know, no one has it yet, except Thomas.  The driver must
> > have a domain of org.postgresql or it is the old version.  Only since I
> > installed Peter's Makefile last week did it become install-able.
> 
> So the version currently in CVS has seen hardly any testing either?
> Man, you really know how to make a guy feel comfortable :-(

Up to then, it was using the code in postgresql.  Now it is using
org/postgresql directory, and they are different.  postgresql is the
6.5.* driver, and org/postgresql is the 7.0 driver.

> Given that, we might as well let Peter have the extra day or two
> to bring the CVS version to the best state he can.

Yea, it had that effect on me too.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Tue, 2 May 2000 13:37:43 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
> My two cents: I wouldn't object to postponing release a day or so for
> it, *but* if what we're getting is an un-beta-tested driver then my
> level of enthusiasm drops considerably.  I'd rather say "it'll get
> fixed in 7.0.1, after a decent testing interval for the new driver".

Both versions of JDBC are in the Postgres source code tree. The newer
version has more standard conventions for Java namespaces (right
term??) and improvements in conformance to later versions of the JDBC
spec.

Basically the stuff is there already, and we just have a few file
updates to get it finalized. I'd be suprised if it is not ready by the
weekend, so it shouldn't be much of an issue.

                     - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Wed, 03 May 2000 04:21:04 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status