Andrew McIntyre wrote: > On 9/13/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Why are you giving up? >> >> I still believe there is a possible solution to this, so that the Derby >> community can ship with JDBC4 capability - to that end, I'm doing what I >> can to try to find a solution with Sun on this. > > It wasn't clear to me, as I'm sure it was not clear to others, that > anyone else was still pursuing a solution that would allow us to ship > with the JDBC 4 bits in the binaries. Since the issue got stuck on the > Mustang license with the Sun lawyers, and since the Sun people on the > list seem to have abandoned the idea, I assumed the search for a > solution was over. Thank you for continuing to pursue the issue.
I'm hope that I actually help here :) > >> Do people not care? I just don't understand. Derby can be the world's >> first database with JDBC4 support, so it's there and ready when Mustang >> is released. > > Unless there are some kind of major changes in between our release and > the Mustang release that cause a major incompatibility on our side. > Just recently, between b95 and b98 of Mustang, there was a few changes > that caused major breakage. So if something similar happens between > now and when Mustang ships, then we have the distinction of shipping > the first database with really broken JDBC 4 support. I think this was > Craig's concern. (not one of mine, necessarily, see below) I understand. > >> This means that Sun has to fork Derby, and also JavaDB is therefore >> more technically advanced than Derby, and no one wants that either. No >> one wins here. Lets find a solution. I don't think it will take much >> longer. > > Even with the 'optional JDBC 4 functionality not built into the > binaries' route for 10.2.1, there wouldn't be a need for Sun to fork > Derby per se, they just wouldn't be shipping Apache's official > release. They could still ship something mid-stream between 10.2.1 and > 10.2.2 directly out of the Derby codebase with the JDBC 4 > functionality built in, and I personally wouldn't call that a fork. That's true, and I guess I did get a little carried away there :) I was tired, in a plane, in the snow, at night, uphill, both ways... > It's not clear to me that Sun was ever planning on shipping the > official 10.2.1 anyway, since I'm pretty sure that Sun wanted to be > up-to-the-second with the JDBC 4 spec and shipping the official > release wouldn't let them do that. Can anyone from Sun clarify the > plans for what would actually go into Mustang? But how much will the API change towards the end of the spec vote? Also, I would think that Sun would *want* to relabel a derby release, because then support issues are much easier for the larger community to deal with. I think it would be much better for JavaDB to be in lock-step with Derby, so a user of JavaDB would to be able to approach the Derby community regarding questions about the code that could actually be answered. But this is Sun's call. > > Anyway, I'd love to see Mustang ship with Derby, and for us to be able > to ship 10.2.1 with JDBC 4 support in it sooner rather than later, so > I'd love to hear the solution being pursued. Would the plan be for Sun > to release the JDBC 4.0 API as a jar file under the spec license or > some other compatible license so that we could use a 1.5 compiler to > build in our JDBC 4 support? That seemed to be what you were > suggesting in your the last mail. Yes, and I've heard it's been considered and shot down. I have some other ideas - let me flesh them out a bit first. > FTR, I don't find the compatibility concerns with 10.2.1 and Mustang > terribly onerous, since we would have the JDBC 4.0 functionality > clearly labelled as 'early and possibly not compatible with the final > JDBC 4.0 spec,' or whatever language was being worked on, all over the > docs and release notes. Plus, we could put out our own 10.2.2 with > whatever changed and be up-to-spec the same week that Mustang is > released. Yes. I was also wondering if this could be a plugin - that you drop the derby-jdbc4.jar somewhere and it Just Works. That artifact could be released separately on the day of JDBC4 finality... geir > > cheers, > andrew > >
