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, 21 Sep 2005 15:22:32 GMT
Well, that works for me!


Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>>In my original proposal:
>>   * compatibility will be strongly encouraged but not guaranteed
>>     against previous minor versions (e.g. a 10.2 consumer works
>>     with 10.1 common classes, but a 10.3 consumer has a hard
>>     dependency on new methods, it can not work with 10.2
>>     common classes).
>>Perhaps I remember incorrectly, but I remember us (or enough of us)
>>generally agreeing that gracefully dying when Y level function was
>>required was not acceptable, as this was a regression of existing
>>behavior.  This was the "nail in the coffin" for my original proposal.
> Maybe I'm an optimist, but I think that a consumer of common code can
> always be coded to keep running (in a reduced mode) when faced with an
> older version of the common code. Thus I think this approach can be made
> to work, just start with the mindset that dying is unacceptable, rather
> than inevitable.
> Dan.

View raw message