db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Discussion (in preparation for a vote) on interface stability table
Date Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:25:54 GMT
I agree we need to address client/server compatibility, but my hope is 
that this is addressed by defining the appropriate stability levels for 
the interfaces that the client depends upon.  I am guessing this 
includes DRDA, the metadata stored procedures, and probably some others. 
  So when you look at the interface list, make sure (a) every interface 
the client depends upon is called out and (b) that these interfaces are 
declared as Stable or Private Stable (a new classification I just added).

I think even after a major release we should strive for backwards 
compatibility with clients.  However, if we *do* need to make an 
incompatible change (God forbid) then we would need to make it at a 
major release and document clearly the incompatible change.

David

Kathey Marsden wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> 
> 
>>David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>>Hi, all.  I would like to propose that we have a discussion, in
>>>preparation for (at some time in the future) a vote on the interface
>>>table I put together at
>>>
>>>http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ForwardCompatibility
>>>   
>>>
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> I think we need something about   client/sever compatibility.   How long
> will different client/sever combinations be supported? When will we
> negotiate down vs throw an error?   The same questions apply  for
> client/server differences in jvm version.  Should that information  be
> on  a different page or this one?  I prefer a timed based support (e.g.
> five years) rather than  a decision based on Derby versions.
> 
> Kathey
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message