Heikki,

> See the discussion here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...7/msg00137.php
> continuing in August here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...8/msg00006.php

I understand why it's a wrapper. I don't understand why the wrapper isn't at
jdbc.postgresql.org. Putting it on pgfoundry, completely separate from all
the JDBC drivers, is pretty much a guarentee that nobody will ever download
it.

Or is it moving to jdbc.postgresql.org once it's tested?

Just so everyone is clear on why this is important & urgent ... we published a
benchmark[1] using the caching driver, which is the only published benchmark
PostgreSQL has. This benchmark has generated a huge amount of interest in
PostgreSQL as an alternative to Oracle[2], and is very important to driving
the adoption of PostgreSQL *especially* amoung J2EE developers. So it would
be nice to see the caching wrapper represented as "official" unless there's
something technically wrong with it.

[1]http://www.spec.org/jAppServer2004/results/res2007q3/jAppServer2004-20070703-00073.html
[2]http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201001901

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster