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 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:04:52 GMT
David W. Van Couvering wrote:

> 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.
>
That sounds good.  Just wanted to make sure there is a catch all for this.

>>
>> -   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.
>
Yes, a note would be good for clarification.

> 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.

Agreed.

>   I think the console output format for tools and server should
> actually be marked Private -- 

good

> are system stored procedures in the user documentation?

http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/dev/ref/crefsqlbuiltinsystemprocedures.html



Mime
View raw message