db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Modular build, was: VOTE: Approach for sharing code
Date Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:08:46 GMT
Hi, Kathy, I am a bit confused by your response.  You seem to be OK with 
the classpath ordering issue given that it's an edge case, but you say 
you want to go for approach 2.  Approach 2 does not require any 
classpath ordering.  

Also, note that in general classpath ordering isn't important except in 
the case where the user is already consciously futzing with the 
classpath to mix versions in the same VM.


> Hi David,
> Thank you very much for the clear explanation.  From a usability 
> perspective, I would vote for approach 2.  Requiring a classpath to be 
> in a particular order is always an issue.  However, the saving grace 
> is that it sounds like the ordering issue only comes up if you mix 
> versions of the derby.jar and the derbyclient.jar in the same 
> classpath.  I don't believe most users put the client and engine in 
> the same classpath (unless there's a new requirement I don't know 
> about), so that definitely helps.  Requiring classpath in a specific 
> order can easily lead to complications though, so I'm not in favor of 
> it in general.

View raw message