John Embretsen wrote: > David W. Van Couvering wrote: > >> I can add this, but to answer real quickly, at this point there are >> no restrictions and no visible user impact. > > ly add a "no" between the words "be" and "visible" in the following > sentence in the "User Visible Impact and Restrictions" sectio > Then you should probabn: > > "With these guidelines in place, there should in general be visible > impact or restrictions for Derby users."
I think I would prefer to see a clear commitment (without words like "should" and "in general" ) that: There *will* be no visible impact or restrictions for Derby users who have different versions of derbyclient.jar, derbytools.jar and derby.jar in the same JVM, unless the jars are different major versions. If the major versions differ, classloaders need to be used to separate the versions. No visible impact implies the following checkin requirements for any common code. - derbyclient.jar, derby.jar, and derbytools.jar of the same major version can continue to be mixed within the same JVM classpath without any difference in behavior from loading these jars in separate classloaders. - Jar file growth is commensurate with functionality improvement. - Replacing any jar with a jar of the same major version will not require any user classpath changes. Is that what we are committing to? Kathey
