db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kathey Marsden <kmarsdende...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: VOTE: Shared Components Guidelines
Date Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:46:44 GMT
John Embretsen wrote:

> David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>> I can add this, but to answer real quickly, at this point there are
>> no restrictions and no visible user impact.  
> ly add a "no" between the words "be" and "visible" in the following
> sentence in the "User Visible Impact and Restrictions" sectio
> Then you should probabn:
> "With these guidelines in place, there should in general be visible
> impact or restrictions for Derby users."

I think I would prefer to see a clear commitment  (without words like
"should"  and "in general" ) that:

There *will*  be no visible impact or restrictions for Derby users who
have different versions of derbyclient.jar, derbytools.jar  and
derby.jar  in the same JVM,  unless the jars are different major
versions.  If the major versions differ,  classloaders need to be used
to separate the versions.

No visible impact  implies the following checkin requirements for any
common code.

-  derbyclient.jar, derby.jar, and derbytools.jar  of the same major
version can continue to be mixed within the same JVM classpath without
any difference  in behavior from loading these  jars in separate
-  Jar file growth is commensurate with functionality improvement.
-  Replacing  any jar  with a jar of the same major version  will not
require any user classpath changes.

Is that what we are committing to? 


View raw message