db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ole Solberg <Ole.Solb...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Backward compatibility question
Date Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:59:21 GMT
Kathey Marsden wrote:
> David Van Couvering wrote:
>> OK, I got one answer from Bryan (yes for client/server, no for
>> embedded, which makes sense) and one from Kathy (no backward
>> compatibility period).
>> Just want to check -- is client/server backward compatible or not?
> Sorry David, Bryan is right.  If you start your server with 10.3, you
> can connect with a 10.2 client, although our testing in this area is
> fairly thin.
> Kathey

It is rather thin, but we do some testing in this area:

The tests reported in e.g.

includes the 'compatibility' /
'.tests.junitTests.compatibility.CompatibilityCombinations' test which
runs the '.../junitTests.compatibility.JDBCDriverTest' on all
combinations of servers and clients (and a set of jvms).

This reports e.g.

 ServerVM-j16lib_server10.3.1.4_vs_ClientVM-j16lib_client10.2.2.0: Time:
0.233 OK (2 tests)

which means client10.2.2.0 was used to connect to a database created
with server10.3.1.4.

Today I also did a run of this test *without re-creating* the database
when switching to newer servers,
i.e. a soft upgrade is done when connecting to the database. This was
also OK:

 ServerVM-j16lib_server10.3.1.4_vs_ClientVM-j16lib_client10.2.2.0: Time:
0.223 OK (2 tests).

Some more info on the
'.tests.junitTests.compatibility.CompatibilityCombinations' test can be
found in DERBY-2316.

(This thread also made me aware I hadn't updated my environment for in this test. Should be OK from tonight.)

Ole Solberg, Database Technology Group,
Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway

View raw message