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: Should we vote on it? (was Re: Discussion (in preparation for a vote) on interface stability table)
Date Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:38:50 GMT
David W. Van Couvering wrote:

> Just to be clear, what we'd be voting on would be not only the various
> definitions of interface stability but *also*, for each declared
> interface, the level of stability we as a community are agreeing to
> support.  This can then guide decisions by developers and reviewers as
> to whether a change to a given interface can be accepted or not.
> David
> David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>> It's been awfully quiet out there.  Are there really no other
>> opinions about this.  One little peep from Dan and another from
>> Kathey, and we're done?  Is this the derby-dev alias I know and love?
>> I mean, maybe it's just *that* good that there is no debate, but
>> somehow, I wonder...
>> I'll give it another 24 hours, and if there are no other comments,
>> I'm going to basically take the contents of these page and put them
>> up for a vote.  If the vote passes, I'll migrate the contents of the
>> vote to the "main" web site so that our "contracts" around these
>> interfaces stabilities are more or less set in stone, as it were.
>> David
>> 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
>>> The approach I was thinking of is:
>>> - everybody who is interested take a look at this table, and raise
>>> issues as needed
>>> - discussion ensues as needed
>>> - I will incrementally update the Wiki page when it seems there is a
>>> consensus on a particular issue
>>> Once things have somewhat stabilized (and where there is contention,
>>> people are starting to repeat themselves :)), I'll then I'll hold a
>>> vote.  The vote email will contain the relevant text and the
>>> interface table from the Wiki page, so that we know what we're
>>> voting on and so that it ends up in the archives.
>>> This interface table would be for the next release of Derby (10.1.3
>>> or 10.2, whichever comes first).
>>> I would like to suggest that if you want to discuss the stability
>>> classification of a *particular* interface, you do so with a
>>> separate, specific email subject line, so that those who may be
>>> interested will notice and participate.
>>> How does this sound?
>>> Does anyone think we need to vote on the interface taxonomy and the
>>> definition of an interface separate from the stability
>>> classifications given to each interface?
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.

-   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.

In the interface table I would add:
- Defaults returned by DatabaseMetaData methods       Stable
- Documented  defaults                                                 
- console output format for tools and network server      Unstable
- System stored procedures                                          Stable

Under notes  It would be good to mention:

The Derby development community voted that network client driver will be
changed to match embedded where possible for implementation defined

Could we wait a week for a vote?    I think I need to study this some more.
Thanks David for doing this.


View raw message