db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Van Couvering <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Potentially removing compatibility requirements for shared code
Date Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:53:59 GMT
I'm a little confused, I thought that the requirement was to be able to
run two Derby apps at different version levels in the same VM (one using
the 10.2 network client driver and the other usin the 10.3 embedded driver).

If this was what you mean by "mixing of jars," then, yes, it was my
intention to allow this, but that we would make it possible to do this
without requiring compatibility rules upon shared code and without
impact on the users.  We already agreed that removing support for mixed
versions was not acceptable.

I think this is what you mean by "Horray!  go for it.", right?

Kathey Marsden wrote On 11/18/05 13:01,:
> David Van Couvering wrote:
>>I am thinking (and I think Kathey's thinking along the same lines)
>>perhaps there is a way to either transparently or with very little work
>>from the user (e.g. a property on the connection URL) make it possible
>>to isolate loading of Derby classes using some kind of specialized
>>*If* I can figure something out, this could remove the requirement to
>>support backward and forward compatibility, which is a serious albatross
>>right now around shared code.
> Some how I think the title of this mail  should be either:
> "I  think I can find a way to allow mixing of jars of different
> versions  in the same JVM without impact or changes required for
> existing applications!"
> In which case I say "Hooray! go for it."
> or
> "Remove  mixed jar capability all together  because we might be able to
> provide a workaround for users"
> In which case I say  "Not now! The current regressions planned are scary
> enough!"  Even if the applications can implement the workaround and
> release their products today, there is the installed user base to worry
> about, they can have an incidental  impact which shouldn't be exacerbated.
> "Potentially removing compatibility requirements for shared code"   is 
> kind of like calling it "Potentially removing the requirement to balance
> your check book".  Sounds neat but  is there impact?
> Kathey

View raw message