On 9/13/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Van Couvering wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>> David Van Couvering wrote:
>>> Laura Stewart (JIRA) wrote:
>>>> [
>>>>
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1271?page=comments#action_12434569
>>>>
>>>> ] Laura Stewart commented on DERBY-1271:
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Jean -
>>>> Here is my attempt at wordsmithing...
>>>>
>>>> "JDBC 4.0 functionality is not enabled in this Derby release. JDBC 4.0
>>>> is part of Java SE 6, which was not generally available for Derby
>>>> 10.2. When you use Derby with a Java SE 6 virtual machine, JDBC 3.0 is
>>>> available. JDBC 4.0 is available only to developers who download Java
>>>> SE 6 and use it to add JDBC 4.0 support to Derby. The Release Notes
>>>> explain how to build the JDBC 4.0 functionality with Derby 10.2. When
>>>> Java SE 6 becomes generally available, a follow-on Derby release will
>>>> include final JDBC 4.0 functionality. "
>>>
>>>
>>> - I think 'was not generally available at the time of the Derby 10.2
>>> release' is a better phrasing
>>
>> I really like the positive spin of Myrna's suggested first sentence:
>
>>> This release includes JDBC 4.0 functionality based on a pre-release of
>>> Java SE 6.
>>
>> could that replace the first two sentences?
>
> Yes
I'll try this on for size and upload a new review draft:
This release includes JDBC 4.0 functionality based on a pre-release of
Java SE 6. When you use Derby with a Java SE 6 virtual machine, Derby
will use its JDBC 3.0 drivers, just as with 1.4 and 1.5 virtual
machines. JDBC 4.0 is available only to developers who download Java SE
6 and use it to build in support for JDBC 4.0. The Release Notes explain
how to build the JDBC 4.0 functionality with Derby 10.2. When Java SE 6
becomes generally available, a follow-on Derby release will include
final JDBC 4.0 functionality.
thanks Laura, David, and Myrna,
-jean
Nice team-writing, I have 1 more suggestion, how about mentioning
10.2.1 instead of 10.2?
Myrna
