Daniel John Debrunner wrote: >The ability to run in different class loaders, I believe, is not a "get >of jail free card" for backwards compatibility. I don't want to >applications written against Derby to have the be re-written to move up >to a later version. > > > Agreed. My position that we will always have to have a seamless upgrade that does not require application changes is pretty solid. Where it makes sense we can deprecate existing functionality but we cannot change overnight.
Although the ability to run in different class loaders would help mitigate support risks significantly, even if we had this capability and I thought it was used in practice by every application to gain complete control over its own Derby version, I can think of only one of the numerous proposals to break backward compatibility where my position would have wavered at all. It probably wasn't fair of me to imply that if someone implemented this it would soften my position. Kathey
