db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject jsr169 build
Date Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:26:22 GMT
I am trying to figure out what is the difference between jsr169 and 
jdbc3 which requires that we use the small platform jars in order to 
build Derby's J2ME support. I have tried the following experiment on the 
four source files which comprise our jsr169 support (the classnames 
which end in "169"):

1) I made the 3 JDBC classes (the jsr169 versions of ResultSet, 
CallableStatement, and PreparedStatement) extend our JDBC3 versions of 
these classes.

2) Then I compiled Derby with my jsr169compile.classpath pointing at my 
small device jars.

This compilation succeeded. This says to me that the optional small 
device compilation is not going to catch situations where JDBC3 methods 
leak into our jsr169 implementation.

I then ran a further experiment on top of these changes:

3) I changed jsr169compile.classpath to point at the jdk1.4 jars instead.

This compilation also succeeded. I am wondering what would break if we 
simply compiled our J2ME support using the jdk1.4 compiler as described 
above. I'm attaching the diff for (1) and (2). I'd be curious to learn 
what happens when this patch is applied and the tests are run on the 
small device platform.


View raw message