[Mono-list] GSoC Proposal: PL/Mono

Robert Jordan robertj at gmx.net
Tue Mar 31 19:00:31 EDT 2009


Olexandr Melnyk wrote:

> - by specifying an assembly filename and a fully qualified function name:
>     AS 'Library1.dll:Namespace2.Class3.Function4'

Using some kind of assembly qualified name for the method
would fit better in the .NET world:

... AS 'Namespace2.Class3:Function4, Library1.dll[[Version=...], 

> 2) If we go with the approach 2 or 3, should all managed functions
> exposed to PostgreSQL world be marked with some special attribute? For
> example:

The attribute is superfluous because the assemblies must be
already protected anyway, i.e. by loading them from a configured
and trusted location only.

> Requiring an attribute would mean that functions can be used from SQL,
> only if they were really intended for that. However, this would also
> mean that to use a harmless function from standard namespaces (like
> System.Math.Abs), one would need to make a wrapper.

I believe it's OK to force having wrappers for methods
not declared in an assembly located in the trusted area.


More information about the Mono-list mailing list