Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 53869 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2006 21:17:04 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Jun 2006 21:17:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 51532 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2006 21:17:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 51498 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2006 21:17:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 51489 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jun 2006 21:17:03 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:17:03 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [192.18.42.249] (HELO nwkea-pix-1.sun.com) (192.18.42.249) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:17:02 -0700 Received: from d1-sfbay-01.sun.com (d1-sfbay-01 [192.18.39.111]) by nwkea-pix-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k5LLGgM5017943 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.d1-sfbay-01.sun.com by d1-sfbay-01.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) id <0J1800401AOZDP00@d1-sfbay-01.sun.com> (original mail from David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM) for derby-dev@db.apache.org; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.9.61.102] by d1-sfbay-01.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPSA id <0J1800CZGB3TEE60@d1-sfbay-01.sun.com> for derby-dev@db.apache.org; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:16:48 -0700 From: David Van Couvering Subject: Re: [PRE-VOTE DISCUSSION] Compatibility rules and interface table In-reply-to: <4499A8A3.9040603@sun.com> Sender: David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM To: derby-dev@db.apache.org Message-id: <4499B740.90309@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <448F2817.3050006@sun.com> <4499A8A3.9040603@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060427) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Rick Hillegas wrote: > Hi David, > > I had a couple more comments on the compatibility commitments. Cheers-Rick > > - Changes to stored procedures: We will have to change column order if > we add Derby-specific columns to a metadata ResultSet and then a later > JDBC also adds more columns. See Lance's email; OK to leave as is? > > - Changes to Database Tables: We should be allowed to drop indexes > on System tables. OK > > - Changes to Command Line Interfaces. I don't understand why error > message text can't be changed. This contradicts what is said > in the Interface Table below. Hm, good point. I suppose changing the error message text *is* an incompatible change, but given that the interface is private, it's OK to do it. But it is a confusing message. Any suggestions? I can (a) remove error message text from the list of incompatible changes (b) keep it, but clarify that this is a private interface (c) make error message text a public interface My vote is for (a). Anyone disagree? > > - Other miscellaneous formats. I'm not clear on what these miscellaneou > files and strings are. For example, I'd like to make sure that we're > not enshrining > the current RUNTIMESTATISTICS output. Again, I think this goes back to the same point. It's not clear what the relationship is to the classification of an interface in the interfaces table and what it means to make an incompatible change. I think you're assuming incompatible changes can only apply to public interfaces, because it's really kind of moot/inapplicable for private interfaces. I think there's value in describing what it means to make an incompatible interface change, but I think the ultimate "truth" in terms of what we actually support in terms of interface stability across releases is described in the interfaces table. I think some text in the "incompatible changes" section clarifying this would be helpful. Any thoughts? > > - Interface table: > > o Shouldn't the public client api be stable like the embedded api? Yes > > o What is meant by "Defaults returned by DatabaseMetadata > methods"? > I don't know, I think I put this in as feedback from someone else. Can anyone clarify? > o I think that the format of RUNTIMESTATISTICS output is unstable. > OK, anyone disagree? Thanks for your review, Rick! David > > David Van Couvering wrote: > >> Hi, all. I am thinking of setting up two separate votes based on the >> Wiki page at >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ForwardCompatibility >> >> The first one would be on our overall model/approach to making >> compatibility commitments, as described in the Wiki page. >> >> The second would be specifically for the interface table, targetted at >> the 10.2 release. >> >> The reason for separating these out is because, for each release, we >> should update the interface table and have a new vote; the overall >> model/approach does not need to be updated or voted on for each release. >> >> I would copy the appropriate text directly into the email for the >> vote, so that the thing we're voting on is a frozen snapshot, not a >> live document like the Wiki page. >> >> I'd like your feedback on this approach. I'd also like to make sure >> there aren't any lingering issues with the Wiki page as it stands, >> before I go through the process of running a vote. >> >> Thanks, >> >> David > >