From derby-user-return-1585-apmail-db-derby-user-archive=db.apache.org@db.apache.org Wed Aug 03 17:51:19 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 45231 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2005 17:51:19 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Aug 2005 17:51:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 53004 invoked by uid 500); 3 Aug 2005 17:51:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 52813 invoked by uid 500); 3 Aug 2005 17:51:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" Delivered-To: mailing list derby-user@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 52731 invoked by uid 99); 3 Aug 2005 17:51:14 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:51:14 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [65.195.181.55] (HELO dbrack01.segel.com) (65.195.181.55) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:51:04 -0700 Received: by dbrack01.segel.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 56E1148BB2; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:51:08 -0500 (CDT) From: "Michael J. Segel" To: "Derby Discussion" Subject: Re: platform support proposal Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:51:08 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <42EFEB10.1070405@sun.com> <42F04A67.5080200@debrunners.com> In-Reply-To: <42F04A67.5080200@debrunners.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508031251.08223.msegel@segel.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tuesday 02 August 2005 23:39, Daniel John Debrunner wrote: > Rick Hillegas wrote: > > Hi Derby users, > > > > Sun will stop supporting jdk1.3 at the end of March, 2006 (see > > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/index.jsp) and is encouraging customers to > > migrate their applications to supported platforms. Would anyone object > > if the next release of Derby (release 10.2) is the last release which > > runs on jdk1.3? Note that Derby 10.2 will still run on jdk1.4.x and > > jdk1.5.x and, I hope, on some flavor of the upcoming 1.6 jdk. Note also > > that long after jdk1.3 officially sunsets, users will still be able to > > download Derby 10.2 for use on that unsupported platform. > > > > Is this acceptable? If not, how would you like to see Derby handle the > > sunsetting of jdk1.3 support? > > FYI - some of the end of service dates for IBM's 1.3 vms go out to Sep > 2007. > Sigh, not to start a flame war.... IBM is notoriously slow when it comes to staying up to date with changes. (Hint: Type 4 JDBC drivers for DB2, anyone. ;-) No disrespect to IBM, but I would suggest that we keep track/pace with Sun's sunset plans. I would hope that with the recent re-org in ISSD that IBM will make some changes to their End of Service Dates so that IBM keeps in synch. [Note to Dan: We should take this discussion offline. (gumby@segel.com)] While it is important to maintain some backwards compatibility, it doesn't make sense to keep support for sunset'd versions of a jdk in the current release. I don't want to say that this is an IBM centric issue, but that anyone using an older jdk release should expect indefinite support. For every new feature, you have to now test it against JDK 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 ... I would hope that n-1 support, where n = current latest GA'd release, should suffice. As it has been pointed out, they can always use a prior version of Derby if they need to use an older jdk... -Mikey -- Michael Segel Chief Peon in Charge MSCC (312) 952-8175 [M]