On 6/22/06, Daniel John Debrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't an implementation of JSR221 writing (clean room) classes in the
java.sql and javax.sql name spaces. (e.g. java.sql.Driver
javax.sql.DataSource).
Derby is not doing that, Derby is providing an implementation of a JDBC
driver, not
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
On 6/22/06, Andrew McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(which would be the 10.1.2 in (3) )
one last errata - this should read:
(which would be the 10.2.2.x in (3) )
a
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
David posted a good summary of the legal catch-22 at [1]. But the
shortest story is:
+ Mustang wants to ship a GA Derby 10.2, which supports JDBC 4.0.
+ Derby can't ship a GA
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
[snip lot's of interesting legal conversation that I can't keep up with]
To me, the core question for the Derby community is do we want to
interject an extended commercial external dependency into our release
cycle. To that I vote -1. It seems contrary to the Apache Way and
all that
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
David posted a good summary of the legal catch-22 at [1]. But the
shortest story is:
+ Mustang wants to ship a GA Derby 10.2, which supports JDBC 4.0.
+ Derby can't ship a GA 10.2 until JDBC 4.0 is GA, which is with Mustang.
Let's keep this thread confined to the JCP
Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
David posted a good summary of the legal catch-22 at [1]. But the
shortest story is:
+ Mustang wants to ship a GA Derby 10.2, which supports JDBC 4.0.
+ Derby can't ship a GA 10.2 until JDBC 4.0 is GA, which is with
Mustang.
Let's
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
So, I can see any of the following things as possibilities:
1) The Derby community could release a 10.2.1.x minus the JDBC 4 bits
whenever it likes. Maybe even next week. :-)
-1 The plan of record has been (and continues to be) shipping a 10.2
Derby GA after Mustang
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
As for alpha/beta bits: they should not be set on a release candidate.
The vetted bits are the final bits if the community votes for the
release. As far as I know, they were not set on the recently rejected
10.1.3 RC.
The 10.1 (in fact any)
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
David posted a good summary of the legal catch-22 at [1]. But the
shortest story is:
+ Mustang wants to ship a GA Derby 10.2, which supports JDBC 4.0.
+ Derby can't ship a GA 10.2 until JDBC 4.0 is GA, which is
and does the close of the successful vote mark the change to GA? Seems
it's the only logical point, the announce and distribution via the
mirrors are just action items after the GA decision is made.
The vote could be to go GA on a specific date.
Andreas
Dan.
Andrew, thanks for putting in your time and research for this discussion.
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
[snip]
So, I can see any of the following things as possibilities:
1) The Derby community could release a 10.2.1.x minus the JDBC 4 bits
whenever it likes. Maybe even next week. :-)
2) Sun
Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
...
Can Derby legally build an RC with the GA bits set before JDBC 4.0 is
GA? --Understanding that the RC will be readily available to anyone to
download?
This legal issue needs to get resolved.
In this case, it is Rick (the release
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Nice post. Comments inline :
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
...
So, I can see any of the following things as possibilities:
1) The Derby community could release a 10.2.1.x minus the JDBC 4 bits
whenever it likes. Maybe even next week. :-)
2) Sun releases a version of Derby
David Van Couvering wrote:
What happened to the proposal to vote and approve a GA-enabled release,
but not make it actually available until Java SE 6 goes GA? Did we
decide this was not feasible? I may have missed it, but I don't think I
saw that discussion anywhere.
That is the discussion
On 6/23/06, Jean T. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
In this case, it is Rick (the release manager) who builds the RC, and
who makes it available before JDBC4 goes GA. I guess it would be up to
him to take the legal responsibility.
The
David Van Couvering wrote:
Andrew, thanks for putting in your time and research for this discussion.
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
...
What happened to the proposal to vote and approve a GA-enabled release,
but not make it actually available until Java SE 6 goes GA? Did we
decide this was not
On 6/23/06, David Van Couvering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What happened to the proposal to vote and approve a GA-enabled release,
but not make it actually available until Java SE 6 goes GA? Did we
decide this was not feasible? I may have missed it, but I don't think I
saw that discussion
David Van Couvering wrote:
What happened to the proposal to vote and approve a GA-enabled
release, but not make it actually available until Java SE 6 goes GA?
Did we decide this was not feasible? I may have missed it, but I
don't think I saw that discussion anywhere.
This was my comment
On 6/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I can see any of the following things as possibilities:
1) The Derby community could release a 10.2.1.x minus the JDBC 4 bits
whenever it likes. Maybe even next week. :-)
2) Sun releases a version of Derby with JDK 1.6 that reports
On 6/23/06, Daniel John Debrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
So, I can see any of the following things as possibilities:
1) The Derby community could release a 10.2.1.x minus the JDBC 4 bits
whenever it likes. Maybe even next week. :-)
-1 The plan of record has been
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
Looks like, barring clarification by Sun what the spec license means
concerning applications that implement interfaces in a non-final JSR,
even in their own namespace, the Derby community shouldn't do anything
regarding a release with JDBC 4 - i would say not even post
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 6/23/06, Jean T. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
In this case, it is Rick (the release manager) who builds the RC, and
who makes it available before JDBC4 goes GA. I guess it would be up to
him to take the
Hi, Kathey. I understand your concerns, and I think they're important,
but I do want to make sure we distinguish two separate issues.
The first issue is around the JCP. This has nothing to do with a
company's release schedule. It has to do with the fact that we as a
community wanted to
Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
Anyone can check out the Derby source tree, and build a derby with the
GA bit set at any time. If anyone does that, it clearly does not mean
that Derby has gone GA with JDBC4, and that the community is held
legally responsible.
It might depend on if they had to
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Looks like, barring clarification by Sun what the spec license means
concerning applications that implement interfaces in a non-final JSR,
even in their own namespace, the Derby community shouldn't do anything
regarding a release with JDBC 4 - i would say not
On 6/23/06, Andreas Korneliussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 6/23/06, Jean T. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
In this case, it is Rick (the release manager) who builds the RC, and
who makes it available
Kathey Marsden wrote:
I know I do and I think it is good to facilitate it with a plan like
this, but not to be held hostage by it by creating a special not GA
for anyone but Sun release.
Well put.
Dan.
Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
...
Anyone can check out the Derby source tree, and build a derby with the
GA bit set at any time. If anyone does that, it clearly does not mean
that Derby has gone GA with JDBC4, and that the community is held
legally responsible.
Anyone can build Derby, yes.
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 6/23/06, Andreas Korneliussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I responded to this part of your post, and wanted to clarify that Derby
does not build the RC, it is the RM who does it.
Yes, because it is the RM as an individual that ultimately builds and
publishes the
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 6/23/06, David Van Couvering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What happened to the proposal to vote and approve a GA-enabled release,
but not make it actually available until Java SE 6 goes GA? Did we
decide this was not feasible? I may have missed it, but I don't think I
Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 6/23/06, Jean T. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
In this case, it is Rick (the release manager) who builds the RC, and
who makes it available before JDBC4 goes GA. I guess it
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 6/23/06, Andreas Korneliussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 6/23/06, Jean T. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
In this case, it is Rick (the release manager) who builds the RC,
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
snipped interesting stuff to show just the end solution
While I'd just chuck JDBC4 myself, that doesn't work for Sun. So I did
come up with one solution :
1) Have Sun change the draft spec license for 221 from the current to
the new one that allows distribution
Update - a slight modification to #1 would be for the upcoming proposed
final draft to be under the new license. (Source of this suggestion
shall remain nameless) That way no unnatural acts have to be done to an
already-released draft.
geir
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Update - a slight modification to #1 would be for the upcoming proposed
final draft to be under the new license. (Source of this suggestion
shall remain nameless) That way no unnatural acts have to be done to an
already-released draft.
Whatever works for both Apache
True. But we're not talking about just anybody. If a member of the
Derby community does put together a release candidate (that would need
to report itself as a GA version) and publishes it on a website for
others to vote on, then the community could be held responsible.
For what?
As far as
On 6/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Have Sun change the draft spec license for 221 from the current to
the new one that allows distribution with appropriate warning markings.
I'm going to start working this line w/ the PMO and the JCP.
2) Reject Mark Reinhold's curious
On 6/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
Yes, because it is the RM as an individual that ultimately builds and
publishes the release as an official Apache release on behalf of the
ASF.
Absolutely not.
Right, I know I should have put the PMC in there,
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
For violating the JSPA or the spec evaluation agreement as far as
creating/distributing an implementation, which is where people got the
idea that we couldn't publish a GA version of Derby that had JDBC 4.0
bits in it. Although it appears we've now determined that
On 6/23/06, Daniel John Debrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
For violating the JSPA or the spec evaluation agreement as far as
creating/distributing an implementation, which is where people got the
idea that we couldn't publish a GA version of Derby that had JDBC 4.0
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 6/23/06, Daniel John Debrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
For violating the JSPA or the spec evaluation agreement as far as
creating/distributing an implementation, which is where people got the
idea that we couldn't publish a GA version
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 6/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
Yes, because it is the RM as an individual that ultimately builds and
publishes the release as an official Apache release on behalf of the
ASF.
Absolutely not.
Right, I know I
On 6/23/06, Daniel John Debrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In #2 of his proposed solution, Geir said he doesn't believe that
Derby qualifies as an implementation, and thus would not be affected
by the JSPA.
I thought Geir's proposed solution was predicated on item 1)
Geir wrote:
1) Have
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 6/23/06, Daniel John Debrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
For violating the JSPA or the spec evaluation agreement as far as
creating/distributing an implementation, which is where people got the
idea that we couldn't publish a GA version
On 6/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The key is #1. Get it so that you can actually distribute an impl w/
proper labeling, and then consider the JDBC4 functionality just one
minor feature in a much bigger codebase.
Then, since Derby isn't an implementation of JDBC4, but
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 6/23/06, Daniel John Debrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In #2 of his proposed solution, Geir said he doesn't believe that
Derby qualifies as an implementation, and thus would not be affected
by the JSPA.
I thought Geir's proposed solution was predicated on
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 6/23/06, Daniel John Debrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In #2 of his proposed solution, Geir said he doesn't believe that
Derby qualifies as an implementation, and thus would not be affected
by the
I'm _hoping_ there aren't holes here. Seems like a reasonable solution...
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 6/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The key is #1. Get it so that you can actually distribute an impl w/
proper labeling, and then consider the JDBC4 functionality just one
David posted a good summary of the legal catch-22 at [1]. But the
shortest story is:
+ Mustang wants to ship a GA Derby 10.2, which supports JDBC 4.0.
+ Derby can't ship a GA 10.2 until JDBC 4.0 is GA, which is with Mustang.
Let's keep this thread confined to the JCP issue Andrew raised that
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
David posted a good summary of the legal catch-22 at [1]. But the
shortest story is:
+ Mustang wants to ship a GA Derby 10.2, which supports JDBC 4.0.
+ Derby can't ship a GA 10.2 until JDBC 4.0 is GA, which is with Mustang.
Let's keep this thread confined to
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. It might be as
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
David posted a good summary of the legal catch-22 at [1]. But the
shortest story is:
+ Mustang wants to ship a GA Derby 10.2, which supports JDBC 4.0.
+ Derby can't ship a GA 10.2 until JDBC 4.0 is GA, which is with Mustang.
Let's keep this thread confined to the
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
David posted a good summary of the legal catch-22 at [1]. But the
shortest story is:
+ Mustang wants to ship a GA Derby 10.2, which supports JDBC 4.0.
+ Derby can't ship a GA 10.2 until JDBC 4.0 is GA, which is with Mustang.
Let's
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
Brian McCallister wrote:
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
Kathey Marsden wrote:
Brian McCallister wrote:
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
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
David posted a good summary of the legal catch-22 at [1]. But the
shortest story is:
+ Mustang wants to ship a GA Derby 10.2, which supports JDBC 4.0.
+ Derby can't ship a GA 10.2 until JDBC 4.0 is GA, which is
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
60 matches
Mail list logo
