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: Should we vote on it? (was Re: Discussion (in preparation for a vote) on interface stability table)
Date Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:26:50 GMT
I'll let you go ponder, but I guess I don't fully understand.  It is a 
Bad Thing at any time to break client/server compatibility.  Hopefully 
we never have to do it.  I guess my only point, and I think the point of 
this Wiki, is that *when* we have to do it, we have to do it at a major 
release boundary, and we will document clearly that there is an 

If we can make a change such that it only breaks compatibility with 
major release - 2 (e.g. the change in 12.0 works with 11.x clients but 
not with 10.x clients), that's great.  We can even agree to make this a 
policy.  But to me that doesn't meant we can make the change at a minor 
release boundary.


Kathey Marsden wrote:
> David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>>I also wanted to respond to the suggestion that compatibility be
>>guaranteed for a given time period, versus tying it to release levels.
>>If we don't *require* that major releases be incompatible, but simply
>>say this is the only time you *can* do it, then I don't see what the
>>issue is.  We can do as many major releases as we want in five years.
>>If we want to also provide a guarantee that any feature will not be
>>broken for five years, that's OK, but I think it would be odd to break
>>compatibility in a minor release just because it's been five years...
>>Or am I not fully understanding your proposal, Kathey?
> It is not a proposal, kind of more of a typical user requirement.   I
> need to think some more on how to that might be implemented from a
> product perspective.      Perhaps the  guarantee of   client/server
> compatibility with the previous and next major release  would be a  
> more realistic approach.  Certainly the kind of jump suggested where
> there is no compatibility between v10 and v11 clients and servers would
> be a very hard move for users.     Upgrade is another area I need to 
> understand better across major version boundaries.  Anyway, all just
> random thoughts at this point.   As I said I need to think more. I will
> study your proposal and all this just as soon as I can and get back.
> Kathey

View raw message