From: thomas at tada.se (Thomas Hallgren) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:09:46 +0100 Subject: [Pljava-dev] Working on 1.4 beta release In-Reply-To: References: <47418556.2070804@tada.se> Message-ID: <474306CA.2040005@tada.se> Tom Dunstan wrote: > Uh, if not us, then who? PL/Java is really cool technology that is > something of a pain to get to the point where you can actually use it > (esp on win32). Let's not compare with the built-in PLs. And yet I > really don't think there's anything that really *requires* it being so > fiddly. > > I would really like to see, ideally, PL/Java installable by > yum/apt-get/pkg-get etc on unix-like systems. I think there's a bit of > work to do to get there, but it's not impossible. But I'll leave > discussion on that for another thread. > > Tom, don't get me wrong. I'm of course all for this. I'm just afraid that the burden of creating a new release will become so heavy that it will have a negative impact on the number of releases that will come out. > > ... > I'm pretty sure I was able to compile pljava against a 1.5 JDK and run > it against a 1.6 one. So I don't think we should need to build it for > more than one JVM. That's assuming that we don't want to support GCJ. That's equal to adding a requirement to install a JVM. > The architectures that Kris mentioned sound good to > me, although I'd like to see Solaris/sparc in there as well if > possible (although like Kris, I don't have access to a sparc machine > atm), and perhaps MacOSX/x86 (since I've got a Macbook :) ). The > question then becomes: which pgsql versions do we want to support? > 8.1-8.3? > > Perhaps an idea would be to provide binary support for the latest, or the latest two? I.e. if you want older, build your own? > I have a build script that can build pljava, run the test suite and > spit out binaries. It works (well I've tested it) on win32, > solaris/x86 and linux/x86. I'd be more than happy to build binaries > for all of those postgres versions for those platforms. > > Great! Would you like to be added to the project so that you can upload files there? > Build java code with -g, but pljava c code without debugging symbols I > reckon. If someone wants to debug pljava C code, they can build it > themselves. :) > > Well, it's not so much about debugging really. It's more the information you can get once something is crashing. As I mentioned, the JVM prints a stack trace that can be very useful. Much is gained if the user who experiences a crash can provide the JVM dump file in a bug-report or attach it to a mailing list posting. > > I have some free time over the next few weeks, so I can have a go at > getting the wiki docs into some kind of source control. Awesome. > What source format do we want? HTML? Docbook a la the main distribution? HTML > would obviously require less effort at build time, so I would probably > vote for it just on those grounds... > > +1 for html. Regards, Thomas Hallgren