Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 10:16:44 -0400
From: "Lance J. Andersen" <Lance.Andersen@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1283) Fill in a deprecated but mandatory
 JDBC3 method: PreparedStatement.setUnicodeStream()
In-reply-to: <445A0A0B.4050808@apache.org>
Sender: Lance.Andersen@Sun.COM
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <445A0CCC.5080106@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Boundary_(ID_zjzaQzo6ypXNoQDgq8dahg)"
References: <10747831.1146700637806.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
 <44596427.8010905@sun.com> <44596BCA.4040701@apache.org>
 <445A0607.8080202@sun.com> <445A0A0B.4050808@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_zjzaQzo6ypXNoQDgq8dahg)
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT


>
> DJD question> According to which section of JDBC 3.0?
>
> Then this is about JDBC 4.0 compliance and not JDBC 3.0.
>   
yes and no, the intent has always been there just not clear in print

If you feel more comfortable stating this is JDBC4 so be it, but again 
the intent has always been there, i am just making sure the points are 
highlighted
> I don't see how you can change the rules for JDBC 3.0 compliance with a
> release of the JDBC 4.0 specification. I believe that Sun in the past
> has confirmed JDBC drivers including Derby & Cloudscape pre-open source
> as being JDBC 3.0 compliant, seems wrong to say, oh now there's
> additional work to do.
>   
There has never been a TCK to validate JDBC compliance end to end.

What there has been is a test suite to validate the requirements of a 
JDBC driver in a J2EE environment. and the latest version is for J2EE 
1.3 with JDBC 2.x.  Passing this allows for a tagline to be used by 
driver vendors.
> Dan.
>
>
>
>   

--Boundary_(ID_zjzaQzo6ypXNoQDgq8dahg)
Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid445A0A0B.4050808@apache.org" type="cite">
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
DJD question&gt; According to which section of JDBC 3.0?

Then this is about JDBC 4.0 compliance and not JDBC 3.0.
  </pre>
</blockquote>
yes and no, the intent has always been there just not clear in print <br>
<br>
If you feel more comfortable stating this is JDBC4 so be it, but again
the intent has always been there, i am just making sure the points are
highlighted<br>
<blockquote cite="mid445A0A0B.4050808@apache.org" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">
I don't see how you can change the rules for JDBC 3.0 compliance with a
release of the JDBC 4.0 specification. I believe that Sun in the past
has confirmed JDBC drivers including Derby &amp; Cloudscape pre-open source
as being JDBC 3.0 compliant, seems wrong to say, oh now there's
additional work to do.
  </pre>
</blockquote>
There has never been a TCK to validate JDBC compliance end to end.<br>
<br>
What there has been is a test suite to validate the requirements of a
JDBC driver in a J2EE environment. and the latest version is for J2EE
1.3 with JDBC 2.x.&nbsp; Passing this allows for a tagline to be used by
driver vendors.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid445A0A0B.4050808@apache.org" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">
Dan.


  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

--Boundary_(ID_zjzaQzo6ypXNoQDgq8dahg)--