Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 7236 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2008 15:12:35 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Jan 2008 15:12:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 96897 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jan 2008 15:12:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 96869 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jan 2008 15:12:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 96860 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jan 2008 15:12:24 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 07:12:24 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [69.147.64.93] (HELO smtp120.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com) (69.147.64.93) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:12:11 +0000 Received: (qmail 78862 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2008 15:12:02 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=e/PMH4GOkSEFCFsZqJ04ZtAwLK3V0LQL+vj9CaCN1ReEws6hbf/lGmSuIPAUsEaZxZk04GoVXHd5RY3pm7Pe+DllMkZUXfT7GTKVJMKfsFltAsZjrk/VN8aUjuXlS69ixXrIksfAe7XNgBGjTf/chQDN6sPfOuY2to747C4abbo= ; Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.102?) (kmarsden@sbcglobal.net@70.137.133.215 with plain) by smtp120.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 2008 15:12:02 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: hqHDIS0VM1m8pBbopvBXQjlf86P70jfPPzsMM.CcMxZr0b7.ULIZcjdGJdYv8p1cEoMDaTUVOQ-- Message-ID: <478CCDA9.4030306@sbcglobal.net> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 07:13:45 -0800 From: Kathey Marsden User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14 (Windows/20071210) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: derby-dev@db.apache.org Subject: Re: Compatibility issue for 10.4 References: <478B94A5.1080502@sun.com> <478BAD79.5010609@sbcglobal.net> <478C8589.7090704@Sun.COM> In-Reply-To: <478C8589.7090704@Sun.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org John Embretsen wrote: > > Can you elaborate on why having to change the policy file is more > disruptive than most other (incompatible) changes introduced in new > versions? > Most incompatible changes will require change of the application and deployment of a new jar file. The policy file is likely to be customized to the end user site, allowing specific machine access, providing specific paths etc. Typically I would think this would be done as part of the software install process initially, but if changes are required on upgrade then it means more than just placing a new jar file. It means a more involved install procedure or perhaps even editing of the policy file at the end user site. For large roll outs this can be quite cumbersome.