db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jean T. Anderson" <...@bristowhill.com>
Subject Re: 10.2 plans (was Re: 10.2 licensing issue)
Date Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:24:10 GMT
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> On 9/12/06, Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@sun.com> wrote:
>> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>> > 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)?
> With this option the binaries that are shipped do not contain the
> optional JDBC 4 compiled in, and thus are not compiled against the JDK
> 1.6 runtime classes or use the JDK 1.6 compiler and are thus
> unencumbered. i.e. just take the 'jdk16' property out of your
> ant.properties when you're building the release. The source
> distribution, because it isn't compiled, is not encumbered by either
> of these restraints either.
>> I would certainly welcome a solution which doesn't involve yanking out
>> the JDBC4 documentation!
> If we go with option B (which I think is a great idea, btw) then maybe
> just add a note for 10.2 about the need to compiling from the source
> to use the feature and a note about the legal/technical ramifications
> of using the JDBC 4 features.

We might be able to avoid most end user confusion ("hey! how come this
doesn't work with jdbc 4?") by adding a short warning to the half dozen
doc pages that reference 4.0 functionality. I think these are mostly:


Some confusion is inevitable and we'd just deal with it on the user list.

> Once the JDK has shipped, I personally would be ok with doing a 10.2.2
> that includes JDBC 4.0 without moving immediately to 10.3. Although,
> by the time the JDK has shipped, there may be bunch of new features
> that we may want to release, so maybe 10.3 will be the right thing to
> do at that point.

I'd also have no problem enabling jdbc 4 in a 10.2.2 release.


View raw message