db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew McIntyre" <mcintyr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why are you giving up???? (Was Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2)
Date Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:29:33 GMT
On 9/13/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> Why are you giving up?
> I still believe there is a possible solution to this, so that the Derby
> community can ship with JDBC4 capability - to that end, I'm doing what I
> can to try to find a solution with Sun on this.

It wasn't clear to me, as I'm sure it was not clear to others, that
anyone else was still pursuing a solution that would allow us to ship
with the JDBC 4 bits in the binaries. Since the issue got stuck on the
Mustang license with the Sun lawyers, and since the Sun people on the
list seem to have abandoned the idea, I assumed the search for a
solution was over. Thank you for continuing to pursue the issue.

> Do people not care?  I just don't understand.  Derby can be the world's
> first database with JDBC4 support, so it's there and ready when Mustang
> is released.

Unless there are some kind of major changes in between our release and
the Mustang release that cause a major incompatibility on our side.
Just recently, between b95 and b98 of Mustang, there was a few changes
that caused major breakage. So if something similar happens between
now and when Mustang ships, then we have the distinction of shipping
the first database with really broken JDBC 4 support. I think this was
Craig's concern. (not one of mine, necessarily, see below)

> This means that Sun has to fork Derby, and  also JavaDB is therefore
> more technically advanced than Derby, and no one wants that either. No
> one wins here.  Lets find a solution.   I don't think it will take much
> longer.

Even with the 'optional JDBC 4 functionality not built into the
binaries' route for 10.2.1, there wouldn't be a need for Sun to fork
Derby per se, they just wouldn't be shipping Apache's official
release. They could still ship something mid-stream between 10.2.1 and
10.2.2 directly out of the Derby codebase with the JDBC 4
functionality built in, and I personally wouldn't call that a fork.
It's not clear to me that Sun was ever planning on shipping the
official 10.2.1 anyway, since I'm pretty sure that Sun wanted to be
up-to-the-second with the JDBC 4 spec and shipping the official
release wouldn't let them do that. Can anyone from Sun clarify the
plans for what would actually go into Mustang?

Anyway, I'd love to see Mustang ship with Derby, and for us to be able
to ship 10.2.1 with JDBC 4 support in it sooner rather than later, so
I'd love to hear the solution being pursued. Would the plan be for Sun
to release the JDBC 4.0 API as a jar file under the spec license or
some other compatible license so that we could use a 1.5 compiler to
build in our JDBC 4 support? That seemed to be what you were
suggesting in your the last mail.

FTR, I don't find the compatibility concerns with 10.2.1 and Mustang
terribly onerous, since we would have the JDBC 4.0 functionality
clearly labelled as 'early and possibly not compatible with the final
JDBC 4.0 spec,' or whatever language was being worked on, all over the
docs and release notes. Plus, we could put out our own 10.2.2 with
whatever changed and be up-to-spec the same week that Mustang is


View raw message