db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: 10.2 plans (was Re: 10.2 licensing issue)
Date Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:34:39 GMT
Hi Dan,

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

>Since this is an open-*source* project, we do have other options that
>seem to have no legal issues to me (IANAL).
>Option A - Source only release with JDBC 4.0 based on proposed final draft
>  Derby 10.2 release is source only, no pre-compiled jars, removes the
>dependency on the Mustang download.
This would seem to require that users become developers, at least to the 
point of creating a development environment. I had an unhappy initial 
experience as a Derby developer a year ago. Perhaps the situation has 
gotten better. I recall that setting up a development environment 
involved a lot of steps and moving parts--fetching various pieces of 
software from various locations, editting ant configuration files, etc.. 
I think that may discourage many users. That in turn will limit the 
commodity testing and feedback which we hope to get from users of the 
official release.

In addition, an uncontrolled build process would very likely complicate 
bug reporting. For these reasons, I would recommend against this option.

>Option B - Release pre-compiled jars without JDBC 4.0 optional build
>  Option A plus pre-compiled jars without JDBC 4.0, already supported by
>just compiling without a Java SE 6/Mustang JDK.
I'm afraid I don't understand option (B). How does this differ from 
option (1)? Are you recommending that we add some top-level build 
targets so that developers can build jars which contain just the JDBC4 
bits for layering on top of official 10.2 jars?

>In both cases the current state of the 10.2 branch is left unchanged wrt
>JDBC 4.0, ie. no removal of JDBC 4.0 from code or documentation.
I would certainly welcome a solution which doesn't involve yanking out 
the JDBC4 documentation!


View raw message