Knut Anders Hatlen wrote: > David, I think this is a very good proposal! Much better than the > class-version scheme proposed earlier in my opinion. Read my comments > to your questions below. > > "David W. Van Couvering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip] >><ISSUE> >>QUESTION: is there a need for mixed versions between the tools and >>engine code? If so we will need to generate a third package hierarchy >>org.apache.derby.tools.common.*. >></ISSUE> > > > Don't know, but when one first has a framework for common code this > should be relatively easy, don't you think? One more issue will arise > if the shared code is copied into three or more locations: What if > only two of the components use a file? Should that file only be copied > to those two components or to all the components? (Probably not a big > issue. I don't care if a jar gets a couple of KB bigger, but maybe > someone does.) Agreed, and the jar files are built through dependency checking so if a class is in the engine common but not used by the engine, then it will not be part of derby.jar. Though it may be better to have selective copying. Might confuse people to see (say) drda code in the engine common area. [snip] I agree with Knut's other comments on the issues David raised. Dan.
