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: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4329A763.9020801@debrunners.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:54:59 -0700
From: Daniel John Debrunner <djd@debrunners.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derby Development <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Modular build, was: VOTE:  Approach for sharing code
References: <431F8896.605@sun.com> <43207ABC.8080000@sbcglobal.net>
 <43208918.8050706@debrunners.com> <4321049C.2080701@sun.com>
 <4321DF25.1070302@apache.org> <4321E124.7000403@sbcglobal.net>
 <432205BF.604@apache.org> <4325E2E2.8010503@sun.com>
 <43274D95.6050808@mtrad.com> <432753D9.5090808@sun.com>
 <432857C9.6050908@mtrad.com> <43287189.3070001@debrunners.com>
 <4328DF41.4040508@apache.org> <4328EC54.8000707@sun.com>
 <4329022D.4080205@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <4329022D.4080205@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jeremy Boynes wrote:

> David W. Van Couvering wrote:

>> Can't you have the situation where common 10.2 and common 10.3 are
>> both included in the classpath (by accident, as Dan brings up)? 
>> Wouldn't you end up with order dependencies then?

I feel my scenario keeps being misrepresented by the choice of terms
used to decribe it. Using 'accident' makes it sounds as though it's not
an important problem to deal with, as seen in Jeremy's reponse here:

> To what extent do we need to cater for accidents?

The end user didn't accidently install two applications, they chose to
and didn't realise/know that one used client at version 10.2 and one
used engine at version 10.3. In many cases the use of Derby engine is
hidden by the application developer.

Dan.