Re: Regarding GSoc proposal

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:20 PM, dmp <danap@ttc-cmc.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > If work is to be performed with the PostgreSQL JDBC wouldn't a task
>> > which the community desires completed to update/expand the
>> > functionality of the JDBC be more appropriate?
>> >
>>
>> This pretty much sums up my opinion as well.
>>
>
> I think the confusion comes from the fact that this improvement is really
> a server improvement and has nothing to do with the PG JDBC driver.  Atri
> was interested in doing something JDBC related and solicited for ideas
> here, but ended up proposing something that would use the generic JDBC
> interface, but not necessarily the Postgresql JDBC driver and would not
> require modifying it even if it was used.
>
> So it may be useful for Atri to continue to include the -jdbc list on
> discussions if he wants specific advice on the JDBC API, but other than
> that it is not a PG JDBC project.
>
> Kris Jurka

Hi All,

Kris:Thank you for the clarification.You are correct,my project uses
the generic JDBC driver for building a functionality for the Server.It
has no modifications/enhancements for the PostGreSQL JDBC driver
itself.

I shall mark the -jdbc list only when I need some support for the
JDBC(as my project will be extensively using JDBC).For the rest,I
shall not bother you all.

Thank you all for your time,

Atri

--
Regards,

Atri
l'apprenant