Re: Versioned vs unversioned jarfile names?

Tom Lane wrote:

Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> writes: 

Do the jar files now get installed as postgresql-80-jdbc3 or
postgresql-80-309-jdbc3?   

Currently they are installed under the same names they have on the FTP
server, viz

postgresql-8.0.309.jdbc2.jar
postgresql-8.0.309.jdbc2ee.jar
postgresql-8.0.309.jdbc3.jar

This is good for identifying the upstream source, but it does seem like
an awfully specific name to put into an application's classpath. 

Agreed, I think we can drop the version number out of the linked file name

Another issue is that the prior release still had a jdbc1 jar:

pg74.215.jdbc1.jar
pg74.215.jdbc2.jar
pg74.215.jdbc2ee.jar
pg74.215.jdbc3.jar
 

We've dropped support for jdk 1 and subsequently jdbc1

What about multiple versions installed at the same time?  Is that allowed?     

Yeah.  We already have these same concepts in place for shared
libraries, where it's customary to provide (eg)

/usr/lib/libpq.so.3.2*
/usr/lib/libpq.so.3@ -> libpq.so.3.2
/usr/lib/libpq.so@ -> libpq.so.3.2

Basically I'm wondering whether there's an equivalent concept to
libraries' major version number. 

I don't think this works with java, there is more information in the class file besides the signature of the class. The jar needs to be compiled by the same version of java that it will run under.

		regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

 

-- 
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561