[Adding the list again.] On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:46:33PM -0800, David.Comay at Sun.COM wrote: > >>I thought that the SQLite APIs CLIs and APIs were fairly stable across > >>a release such as 3.x. Assuming that is the case, why the Volatile > >>commitment level rather than something like Uncommitted? The former > >>means that nothing can depend on these interfaces without a contract > >>which makes for a fairly developer-unfriendly situation. > > > >See my reply just now. > > So the CLIs and APIs are not stable? Volatile is really weak - can't > we do better than that?
IMO the SQLite community has been very good at keeping the CLI, the API, the ABI, and the file format stable. But they've created incompatibilities such as various limits on the sizes of SQL statements, and things of that sort that we might not want to ship at micro/patch binding if the interfaces were Committed. These incompatible behaviour changes are very unlikely to affect anyone though. Perhaps the i-team could say that the CLI/API/ABI/file format are Uncommitted and say that unspecified behaviours that "rise to the level of an interface" are Volatile. I'm not sure that the ARC has ever done anything like that though. Or perhaps the i-team could just go with Uncommitted. It's certainly easier for the i-team to use Volatile. I can't fault them for it. Nico --
