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: Disussion surrounding holding off metadata changes until certain issues resolved
Date Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:15:33 GMT
Dag H. Wanvik wrote:

>>>>>>"Kathey" == Kathey Marsden <kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Kathey> This is a regression for JCC, but is not a problem for the original
>Kathey> client release with the 10.2 server?  I don't understand why JCC and the
>Kathey> original client release would behave differently in this
>Kathey> regard. Could you explain?
>I'll try :) With an old (10.1) client and a new (10.2) server, there
>will be a problem for *both JCC and the Derby client* in that these
>four metadata calls (changed for SUR) will show a wrong value, since
>no down-negotiation happens for metadata calls:
>	 deletesAreDetected(TYPE_SCROLL_INSENSITIVE) -> true
>	 updatedAreDetected(TYPE_SCROLL_INSENSITIVE) -> true
>	 ownDeletesAreVisible(TYPE_SCROLL_INSENSITIVE) -> true
>	 ownUpdatesAreVisible(TYPE_SCROLL_INSENSITIVE) -> true
Once confirmed, could you file a bug against Network Server for this? It
should negotiate down properly.


>FThat leaves the case of a (potential) new JCC driver and and old
>server. I won't address that.
For now it would be good for JCC to take the same path as  the
client takes to correct this issue.
Since that potential JCC release does not exist yet. 


View raw message