> I am unable to compile the java code with kaffe.  Can anyone compile
> jdbc under 7.0?

Yup. Seems some form of jdk-1.2 works for me. But my default
/usr/bin/javac (on an old RH5.2 system), something called "pizza",
does not.

>  Can you email me that java files that are produced by
> the compile.  I need the *.jar file, and the *.class files.

Do you still need them? I can send what I built, but I'm pretty sure
that Peter Mount has a fresh package built and available on some web
site of his...

                    - Thomas

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

Tue, 02 May 2000 01:59:37 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> >  Can you email me that java files that are produced by
> > the compile.  I need the *.jar file, and the *.class files.
 
> Do you still need them? I can send what I built, but I'm pretty sure
> that Peter Mount has a fresh package built and available on some web
> site of his...

If so, I need them (Java 1 and 2) for the RPM's.  I don't do Java -- and
the RPM's have historically packaged the .jar files as pulled verbatim
from retep.org.uk.  I haven't distributed RC2 RPM's yet for partially
that reason
-- the other part is the lack of an RC2-tested alpha patch.

NOTE:
I have gotten good response and patches to the RPM's from a number of
people this go around -- and it is ENCOURAGING!

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Mon, 01 May 2000 22:30:08 -0400
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
> > I am unable to compile the java code with kaffe.  Can anyone compile
> > jdbc under 7.0?
> 
> Yup. Seems some form of jdk-1.2 works for me. But my default
> /usr/bin/javac (on an old RH5.2 system), something called "pizza",
> does not.
> 
> >  Can you email me that java files that are produced by
> > the compile.  I need the *.jar file, and the *.class files.
> 
> Do you still need them? I can send what I built, but I'm pretty sure
> that Peter Mount has a fresh package built and available on some web
> site of his...

I did get it working using Peter's 6.5.2 jar file.  I was not setting
the CLASSPATH to be the full file path.  I was setting it just to the
directory, which was my fault.  Peter's FAQ for jdbc helped me get it
working.

Peter E. sent me a jar file, but it used postgresql as the domain unstead
of org.postgresql, so it seems that is the 6.5.2 version too.  Peter's web
site does not have the 7.0 jar file there yet.

However, it seems kaffe can't compile self-referencing java files.  I
don't know enough about java to know that is a problem or not.

I did get it working well enough to get my java book example working.

-- 
  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

Mon, 1 May 2000 22:35:37 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
> If so, I need them (Java 1 and 2) for the RPM's.  I don't do Java -- and
> the RPM's have historically packaged the .jar files as pulled verbatim
> from retep.org.uk.  I haven't distributed RC2 RPM's yet for partially
> that reason

"I don't do Java" can change fairly easily; just pick up the java
tarball from blackdown.org or sun.com, untar it into /usr/local, then
set your path via

  set path=(/usr/local/jdk-xxx $path)

Go into src/interfaces/jdbc and type

  make jdbc2

then grab the jar file(s).

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?

> NOTE:
> I have gotten good response and patches to the RPM's from a number of
> people this go around -- and it is ENCOURAGING!

Great!

                     - Thomas

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

Tue, 02 May 2000 03:26:36 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
Today, in a message to Thomas Lockhart, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > I am unable to compile the java code with kaffe.  Can anyone compile
> > > jdbc under 7.0?
> 
> However, it seems kaffe can't compile self-referencing java files.  I
> don't know enough about java to know that is a problem or not.

Have not tried with 7.0, but recent versions of Kaffe were definitely able
to compile the JDBC code that came with 6.5.3, but only after modifying
the version check in the makeVersion.java file in src/interfaces/jdbc (and
perhaps elsewhere where a versioon check occurs). The code checks for the
java version string and rejects everything that doesn't start with either
1.1 or 1.2. The problem was that Kaffe reports its own version, e.g. 1.02,
rather than the corresponding JDK version.

Joachim

-- 
private:  joachim@kraut.bc.ca    (http://www.kraut.bc.ca)
work:     joachim@mercury.bc.ca  (http://www.mercury.bc.ca)



Mon, 1 May 2000 21:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Joachim Achtzehnter <joachim@kraut.bc.ca>
Re: 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, 02 May 2000 05:15:50 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
> Today, in a message to Thomas Lockhart, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > > I am unable to compile the java code with kaffe.  Can anyone compile
> > > > jdbc under 7.0?
> > 
> > However, it seems kaffe can't compile self-referencing java files.  I
> > don't know enough about java to know that is a problem or not.
> 
> Have not tried with 7.0, but recent versions of Kaffe were definitely able
> to compile the JDBC code that came with 6.5.3, but only after modifying
> the version check in the makeVersion.java file in src/interfaces/jdbc (and
> perhaps elsewhere where a versioon check occurs). The code checks for the
> java version string and rejects everything that doesn't start with either
> 1.1 or 1.2. The problem was that Kaffe reports its own version, e.g. 1.02,
> rather than the corresponding JDK version.

Interesting.  It does compile under kaffe 1.05, but the mutually
dependent java files cause a compile error.  Seems 6.5.3 had the same
problem, so I am not sure why it would have worked then.

-- 
  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 06:55:47 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Request for 7.0 JDBC status
Today, Bruce Momjian wrote in an email addressed to Joachim Achtzehnter:
> 
> Interesting.  It does compile under kaffe 1.05, but the mutually
> dependent java files cause a compile error.  Seems 6.5.3 had the same
> problem, so I am not sure why it would have worked then.

Well, it is conceivable that I was actually compiling it with jikes, and
only used Kaffe to run it. In fact, now that I think of it, this is most
likely what I did. Even then, with some version of the driver I had to
patch a runtime version check to make it behave as if Kaffe was a 1.1 JVM.

It is true that Kaffe has a number of problems. Nevertheless, given that
it is licensed under the GPL some people prefer it over the alternatives
even if it has some drawbacks.

Joachim

-- 
joachim@kraut.bc.ca   (http://www.kraut.bc.ca)
joachim@mercury.bc.ca (http://www.mercury.bc.ca)


Tue, 2 May 2000 11:53:17 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
Joachim Achtzehnter <joachim@kraut.bc.ca>
Re: Request for 7.0 JDBC status
> Today, Bruce Momjian wrote in an email addressed to Joachim Achtzehnter:
> > 
> > Interesting.  It does compile under kaffe 1.05, but the mutually
> > dependent java files cause a compile error.  Seems 6.5.3 had the same
> > problem, so I am not sure why it would have worked then.
> 
> Well, it is conceivable that I was actually compiling it with jikes, and
> only used Kaffe to run it. In fact, now that I think of it, this is most
> likely what I did. Even then, with some version of the driver I had to
> patch a runtime version check to make it behave as if Kaffe was a 1.1 JVM.
> 
> It is true that Kaffe has a number of problems. Nevertheless, given that
> it is licensed under the GPL some people prefer it over the alternatives
> even if it has some drawbacks.

Starting the kaffe 1.05, they now use KOPI as their java compiler. I
have contacted them about the problem to see if they can help.

This is clearly a kaffe-related problem, and not a problem with our
jdbc, which is good news.

-- 
  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 17:24:22 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Request for 7.0 JDBC status