Daniel John Debrunner wrote: > Brian McCallister wrote: > >> On Jun 22, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote: >> >>> "You cannot have a GA version of a JDBC 4 driver until JSR 221 goes >>> final." >>> >>> Where does this restriction come from? >> >> Until a spec is final I don't see how you can have a certified compliant >> implementation of that spec. > > Agreed, and I'm not sure that there is any requirement for Derby to have > a certified compliant JDBC driver. Sure it would be great to have a > certified driver, but it's not a requirement for a Derby release.
Exactly. > >> It might be as easy as not claiming JDBC 4.0 >> compliance until *after* JSR-221 is final, than saying, "huh, gee whiz, >> we pass the TCK!" > > Except there is no TCK for compliance of a JDBC 4.0 driver. I believe > the compliance for a driver is only described by text in the JDBC 4.0 > spec. The JSR221 TCK is for compliance of the JDBC 4.0 apis. You're right - I just read that part of the spec. That's interesting. The document does state that a JDBC implementation includes the driver and its underlying data source. How odd. So, in my last msg on this thread, I agreed with you that it wasn't an implementation, but according to the spec itself, it is. > >> If the interfaces happen to exist in a release before the spec is final, >> well, cool. Folks using them are at risk of the spec changing at the last >> minute, so I would put bright red warnings around them if they are event >> documented before the official release of the spec (not of Derby). > > +1 In this case, we can argue : - that it's moot as Derby doesn't offer any code in the java.* or javax.* namespace defined by JDBC4 spec yet - the JDBC4 spec itself claims that a JDBC4 driver *is* an implementation of the spec How fun. geir > > Dan. > > > >
