db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bernt M. Johnsen" <Bernt.John...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: 10.3 Concern: Need to make DBO restrictions [Derby-2264] optional at upgrade
Date Wed, 30 May 2007 13:55:29 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Hillegas wrote (2007-05-30 06:26:08):
> Bernt M. Johnsen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Ståle Deraas wrote (2007-05-30 08:23:05):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
> >>Maybe the thread "Q: Should Derby 10.3 be Derby 11?" raised by Bernt is 
> >>what people are thinking of......
> >>    
> >
> >The thread is here:
> >http://www.nabble.com/Q:-Should-Derby-10.3-be-Derby-11--tf3260195.html
> >
> >  
> I have reviewed this email thread. It is largely a discussion about how 
> compatibility issues affect release names. It includes some discussion 
> about the secure-server work (DERBY-2196). It does not have much to say 
> about DERBY-2264. 

That's right. My question was raised based on the fact that my db
start script suddenly needed a -noSecurityManager switch in
10.3. I.e. an incompatability.

Stan is pointing at another incompatability, but in principle it's the
same kind of problem: 10.3 will not be compatible with 10.2. 

> The discussion motivated us to document the 
> incompatibilities introduced by DERBY-2196 and DERBY-2264--we described 
> those incompatibilities at the end of the 10.3 release page: 
> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/DerbyTenThreeRelease



> 
> I don't see much discussion of DBO powers here.
> 
> Regards,
> -Rick

-- 
Bernt Marius Johnsen, Database Technology Group, 
Staff Engineer, Technical Lead Derby/Java DB
Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway

Mime
View raw message