Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 6834 invoked from network); 2 May 2005 20:46:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 May 2005 20:46:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 65435 invoked by uid 500); 2 May 2005 20:47:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 65389 invoked by uid 500); 2 May 2005 20:47:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Derby Development" Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 65375 invoked by uid 99); 2 May 2005 20:47:43 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from web81605.mail.yahoo.com (HELO web81605.mail.yahoo.com) (206.190.37.122) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Mon, 02 May 2005 13:47:42 -0700 Message-ID: <20050502204608.75784.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [63.201.230.244] by web81605.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 02 May 2005 13:46:08 PDT Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 13:46:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Levitt Subject: Derby Newtork Client documentation To: Derby Dev MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I'd like to take a shot at updating the documentation to include the Derby Client. I've been mulling several ways to do this, seeing as the current docs use the IBM DB2 JCC Driver, db2jcc.jar etc. So do want to replace all that with information from the Derby Client (I would plan to use the Derby Client spec to do that). All syntax and examples would have to be updated, but that's not too difficult. The question is what to do with the existing information. Do we want to create a new section, say in the Server Admin Guide appendix, that describes using the IBM JCC Client rather than the Derby Client for those who still want to use it? Or should we take it out altogether, and maybe make a separate whitepaper? Either way, I think possibly a whitepaper on moving from the old client to the Derby client would be useful as well. Suggestions? Concerns?