Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 06:16:45 -0700
From: "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: VOTE:  Approach for sharing code
In-reply-to: <431FCA26.7060105@debrunners.com>
To: Derby Development <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-id: <432039BD.1090400@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_S1z3pCIBAlfBbebcUyZpxA)"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
References: <431F8896.605@sun.com> <431FCA26.7060105@debrunners.com>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_S1z3pCIBAlfBbebcUyZpxA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

I was assuming that there was one version for all common code.  I am 
hesitant to version separately each common component.  It seems like 
that's a lot of overhead for component users -- they would have to track 
version compatibility for each component independently. 

It seems to me that since the common classes are deployed as a unit, 
what you really want to know is if the network client or engine can work 
with the common components/classes as a whole.  It's not very useful if 
say the 10.2 network client can work with the 10.1 i18n code but not the 
10.1 DRDA encoding.  It's kind of all-or-nothing.

Thanks,

David

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

>David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I added a comment to DERBY-289
>>(http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-289) that is my official
>>proposal for an approach to sharing code.
>>
>>I am including it in this email as well for easy reference.
>>
>>Please vote and/or comment on this proposal.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I'm a little confused on the versioning. Is the version number for a
>common component in-line with the Derby version or independent? I was
>assuming independent, but it seems from your examples that the versions
>are in-line with the Derby version.
>
>As an example, I imagine code for localization would be fairly static,
>and the initial version may well remain unchanged until several Derby
>releases from now (if ever). Thus I wouldn't expect the version number
>of such common code to change on every Derby release.
>
>Are you saying that all common code is at a single version, rather than
>versions within the common code. Eg. I was imagining a version for
>i18n/l10n code, another for say drda encoding, etc.
>
>Dan.
>
>
>  
>

--Boundary_(ID_S1z3pCIBAlfBbebcUyZpxA)
Content-type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name=david.vancouvering.vcf
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: attachment; filename=david.vancouvering.vcf

begin:vcard
fn:David W Van Couvering
n:Van Couvering;David W
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc.;Database Technology Group
email;internet:david.vancouvering@sun.com
title:Senior Staff Software Engineer
tel;work:510-550-6819
tel;cell:510-684-7281
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard


--Boundary_(ID_S1z3pCIBAlfBbebcUyZpxA)--