db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Van Couvering <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: catch-22: Derby, Mustang, and JCP issue
Date Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:50:46 GMT
Andrew, thanks for putting in your time and research for this discussion.

Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> So, I can see any of the following things as possibilities:
> 1) The Derby community could release a 10.2.1.x minus the JDBC 4 bits
> whenever it likes. Maybe even next week. :-)
> 2) Sun releases a version of Derby with JDK 1.6 that reports as
> 10.2.1.x and has upgrade enabled, however they want to do that.
> Hopefully they get this right and it upgrades to the official 10.2.
> 3) Once the JDBC 4 spec is final, the Derby community could release
> 10.2.(1|2).x + JDBC 4 bits pretty much any time it feels it is ready.

> Regarding (1) and (3), I believe I've seen comments to the effect that
> there are members of the Derby community that would object to adding
> the JDBC 4 feature set in a maintenance release (which would be the
> 10.1.2 in (3) ) which supposedly would not contain any new features.
> That's the way I see it at the moment. Opinions? Did I miss anything?
> (Probably. :-) )

I am pretty sure we have opinions saying no new features in a 
maintenance release.  So I am not sure your proposed approach will work. 
  Derby would have to wait until 10.3 to support JDBC4.

I guess this is an option, but it, I believe, would create a lot of 
confusion in the market, as Java DB in Mustang would be "almost Derby" 
but actually not based on any release of Derby, and would have to stay 
that way until 10.3.  It would also mean that Derby would not be able to 
provide valuable functionality (JDBC4) which is ready and working for 
another six months.

What happened to the proposal to vote and approve a GA-enabled release, 
but not make it actually available until Java SE 6 goes GA?  Did we 
decide this was not feasible?  I may have missed it, but I don't think I 
saw that discussion anywhere.


> andrew

View raw message