db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Levitt <de...@mylevita.com>
Subject Re: Should we vote on it? (was Re: Discussion (in preparation for a vote) on interface stability table)
Date Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:35:55 GMT
>From a documentation perspective, I think if we are
going to say on this page that items are stable AS
DOCUMENTED in the user documentation, then we also
need to put in some sort of requirement on this page
that says any changes made to the stability of an item
MUST be documented as well in order to be committed an
considered stable.  Its not stable if its not
documented and we are telling people that it is stable
as documented.  Agreed?

I think this is something that would be good to put in
to make sure that developers understand the importance
of documenting their work, whether its something new
or a change to something that exists, and that its not
just going to magically show up in the documentation
if they put it in the code (unless its javadoc) :)

--- "David W. Van Couvering"
<David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM> wrote:

> Thanks for your comments, Kathey, and yes, it can
> definitely wait a 
> week.  It was just so quiet that I thought I'd do a
> "ping" and see if 
> there was more to come from everyone.
> 
> Responses below...
> 
> Kathey Marsden wrote:
> > I wish I had more time to look at this but  I 
> think that  I would add
> > these things.
> >  -  In general any documented behaviour is a
> stable interface, unless
> > specifically documented  here or in the
> documentation as unstable.
> 
> I'm not sure how to handle this.  What does it mean
> to "incompatibly 
> change" documented behavior?
> 
> Usually the behavior is in relation to a given
> interface.  So perhaps in 
> our definition of what it means to incompatibly
> change an interface 
> means you can't change the documented behavior of
> that interface (e.g. 
> the "contract" of that interface).
> 
> I think it's also fair to say that unless explicitly
> called out in the 
> table as otherwise, one can assume a publicly
> documented interface is 
> Stable.
> 
> > 
> > -   Derby will at a minimum negotiate down to the
> lower interface
> > revision level:
> >     -   When different versions of Derby client
> and server are used
> > together (in the same or different JVM's)
> >     -  When different jvm versions are used on
> client and server.
> > 
> 
> I think this is a solution that provides a guarantee
> of stability to the 
> client/server interfaces.  I can add this as a note,
> however.
> 
> I think by calling out the *specific* interfaces
> that the client depends 
> upon (DRDA, metadata procedures, system stored
> procedures, ???) and 
> marking them as Stable or Private Stable is a Really
> Good Idea in our 
> attempts to provide the guarantee of client/server
> compatiblity.  Note, 
> for example, some of us newbies changing the
> metadata procedures willy 
> nilly because we were unaware of the impact on
> compatibility.  Having 
> these called out will make us all more conscious of
> what we can and 
> can't do within the system.
> 
> > 
> > In the interface table I would add:
> > - Defaults returned by DatabaseMetaData methods   
>    Stable
> > - Documented  defaults                            
>                     
> > Stable
> > - console output format for tools and network
> server      Unstable
> > - System stored procedures                        
>                  Stable
> > 
> 
> OK, I'll add these.  I think the console output
> format for tools and 
> server should actually be marked Private -- it's not
> documented in the 
> user documentation, and can change at any time.
> 
> Dumb question: are system stored procedures in the
> user documentation? 
> If not, perhaps they should be Private Stable rather
> than Stable?  If 
> they're not documented, what is driving the
> requirement that they be 
> stable - client/server compatibility?
> 
> > Under notes  It would be good to mention:
> > 
> > 	.
> >
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> > Could we wait a week for a vote?    I think I need
> to study this some more.
> > Thanks David for doing this.
> >
> 
> Yes, sure, and you're welcome.
> 
> David
> 
> > Kathey
> > 
> > 
> 


Mime
View raw message