Re: [pgjdbc] Implement JDBC specs via pre-processor step (#435)
От | Vladimir Sitnikov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgjdbc] Implement JDBC specs via pre-processor step (#435) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB=Je-Gd6fC+2cBtrOjon0TqYbm8OmugOfOxgRqkq3cXrsZPgw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgjdbc] Implement JDBC specs via pre-processor step (#435) (Pavel Kajaba <pkajaba@redhat.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgjdbc] Implement JDBC specs via pre-processor step (#435)
Re: [pgjdbc] Implement JDBC specs via pre-processor step (#435) |
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
>Why do you think it's a time bomb? > it won't build because osgi end up somewhere else. It is a time bomb because it does not ensure it achieves "exclude all osgi classes" goal. For instance, suppose in a week I add a *test* class to validate that OSGi does work in pgjdbc as designed? That would add some new files to ".../src/test/java/...". You would miss to delete them, thus your build will fail. Once again: if you delete/add/modify random files from source distribution, you are building on sand. Expect random failures in that case. If current pgsql's build procedure somehow does not suit you, go ahead and raise the discussion on mailing list and/or GitHub's issue. >Can you think about better solution? A proper solution starts from "gathering the requirements". I have not seen your requirements on the build procedure except "no internet". Well, at some point there was a statement like "maven cannot be used at all". I perfectly understand, that distribution of "waffle" in linux world makes little sense. So, I could understand the requirement of "there should be a build parameter that excludes waffle from dependencies". It is easy to test, so we setup just another Travis job that builds "no waffle" variant and it will ensure the build would not get corrupted by some random accident here or there. On the other hand, you go right into the implementation details and claim that if you change some "direct call" to "reflective call", then it would magically solve the problem for you. That does not work. Even if that fix somehow gets merged in, I expect a pull request in a day or two with exactly reverse change set: "improve performance of waffle calls..." That is why I strongly advice you to present your requirements in a clear & testable way. Does that make sense? Vladimir
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: