db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dyre.Tjeldv...@Sun.COM
Subject Re: Q: Should Derby 10.3 be Derby 11?
Date Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:08:01 GMT
"Bernt M. Johnsen" <Bernt.Johnsen@Sun.COM> writes:

> So, the question is then: Is this a Derby 10 release, or should it
> really be Derby 11?
>
> Myself, I have no strong feelings, but wanted to raise the discussion.

Me neither, but here are my observations: 

1) Derby's charter doesn't mention backward compatibility (or forward
   compatibility) at all

2) It has been argued that backward compatibility is implied by the
   "easy to use" requirement, but I think this discussion shows this
   to be inadequate. Clearly, both "secure by default" and "backward
   comatibility" could be seen as ease of use features (The charter
   only says "Secure". It doesn't mention "secure by default"). But
   which ease of use feature is more important? I think the implicit
   "backward compatibility" requirement and its importance relative to
   other requirements should be added to the charter.

3) As far as I can tell (from the Derby website), the idea that an
   incompatibility is OK iff you bump the major version number has not
   been formally accepted/ratified by the Derby community. David van
   Couvering has written a Wiki page about this,

   http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ForwardCompatibility#head-fb84926793e6687822e8397203265a6497911efe
 
   which (in my interpretation) suggests that requiring the -unsecure
   option is an INCOMPATIBLE change to a STABLE interface, and that
   this should only be allowed when changing the major version
   number. However, this wiki page has numerous disclaimers which
   state that this is "just a draft" and "work in progress". 

   If there has been a vote on this, it is not recorded on

   http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/VoteResults

   According to nabble the last discussion about this seems
   to be

   http://www.nabble.com/-PRE-VOTE-DISCUSSION--Compatibility-rules-and-interface-table-tf1782536.html#a4854300

   which doesn't seem to reach a consensus. There doesn't seem to be
   any major disagreement though...

-- 
dt

Mime
View raw message