Errata from my last post, changes marked between ** ;-)
On 6/22/06, Andrew McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... Presumably this is where the idea that you can't ship something that implements an interface in a *non-final* JSR comes from ... Sun wants to release a version of *JavaDB based on Derby* with the JDK that ... includes javadoc *from* Derby that includes material copied from the JDBC 4 spec. ... so that *the Derby engine in JavaDB* reports itself as a *10.2.1.x* ... 2) Sun *could* release a version of Derby *as JavaDB* with JDK 1.6 ... Hopefully they get this right and it upgrades *correctly* to the official *Derby 10.2.x release that includes the JDBC 4 interfaces*.
There are a couple of other places where I meant to say JavaDB instead of Derby and vice versa, but hey, it can be confusing. (Derby != Cloudscape) most of the time either. :-) cheers, andrew
