[Db-derby Wiki] Update of "SharedComponentVersioningGuidelinesReview" by TomohitoNakayama

[Apache Wiki <wi...@apache.org>]

Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Db-derby Wiki" for change notification.

The following page has been changed by TomohitoNakayama:
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/SharedComponentVersioningGuidelinesReview

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  == Comments on First Version of Proposal ==
  ||'''Id'''||'''Ref'''||'''Comment'''||'''Status'''||'''Discussion'''||
  ||DJD1||`ProductVersionHolder`||I think PVH is overkill for a version on common code, why not a simple integer?||Open||'''DJD:''' Don't force commonality just because classes or concepts seem to be somewhat similar. [[BR]]'''JNB''': PVH is overkill but an int is too simple. I'd rather see a feature mechanism. We should be concerned about coupling to common due to the versioning mechanism [[BR]]'''DVC:''' Jeremy created an addendum to this comment with an email, so I am moving the discussion of this item to SharedComponentVersioningGuidelinesReviewDjd1[[BR]]'''DVC:'''Jeremy, I still have a question open to you about why String constants are preferred over int constants.  Do you want to respond, or should I consider the matter closed?  Dan, do you have anything remaining here, or are you satisfied?||
- ||TMNK1||Definition of module||I'm not sure what module means in this context ... The word module was used in paper of derby as next. http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/derby_arch.html#Modules Are they, which mentioned in the paper and in this discussion, refer same existance ?||Resolved||'''DVC:''' You're right, Tomohito, my use of module here is confusing.  I will pick a new term and define it clearly in the context of this discussion.  How about "shareable component?"[[BR]]'''TMNK:''' Well ... I think we have not fiugred out what '''it''' is  , and impossible to name '''it''' now .... (I imagine that '''it''' may be '''''library''''' , however, just imagining and too unreliable thinking .... I think answer of TMNK2 is needed for naming correctly .)[[BR]]'''DVC:'''I tried a definition of "shared component" in WhatIsTheCodeToBeShared, please see what you think||
+ ||TMNK1||Definition of module||I'm not sure what module means in this context ... The word module was used in paper of derby as next. http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/derby_arch.html#Modules Are they, which mentioned in the paper and in this discussion, refer same existance ?||Reopened ? ||'''DVC:''' You're right, Tomohito, my use of module here is confusing.  I will pick a new term and define it clearly in the context of this discussion.  How about "shareable component?"[[BR]]'''TMNK:''' Well ... I think we have not fiugred out what '''it''' is  , and impossible to name '''it''' now .... (I imagine that '''it''' may be '''''library''''' , however, just imagining and too unreliable thinking .... I think answer of TMNK2 is needed for naming correctly .)[[BR]]'''DVC:'''I tried a definition of "shared component" in WhatIsTheCodeToBeShared, please see what you think[[BR]]'''TMNK:'''I don't think this is solved yet. Working on WhatIsTheCodeToBeShared and pages linked from that 
 would be needed .... ||
  ||TMNK2||What is being shared||What is the code to be shared as module in this discussion ? If it were just java apis, they are shared already ....||Resolved||'''DVC:''' I'm not sure what you mean when you say they are shared already.  For example, as it stands today, the internationalization code and messages in the engine can '''not''' be shared with the network client.  Also, the DRDA network code can not be shared between server and client.[[BR]]'''TMNK:'''I think new page WhatIsTheCodeToBeShared is needed to continue discussing ....[[BR]]'''DVC:''' I responded to your questions, please take a look||