Backward compatibility question

[David Van Couvering <da...@vancouvering.com>]

I know I should know this, but I just want to be sure.  If you upgrade
a DB from 10.2 to 10.3 (e.g. hard upgrade), I am assuming you can
still use a 10.2 driver against that database, is that correct?

Thanks,

David

Re: Backward compatibility question

[Bryan Pendleton <bp...@amberpoint.com>]

> I know I should know this, but I just want to be sure.  If you upgrade
> a DB from 10.2 to 10.3 (e.g. hard upgrade), I am assuming you can
> still use a 10.2 driver against that database, is that correct?

Are we talking a client/server configuration here? Or embedded?

I believe that a 10.2 client can talk to a 10.3 server which serves
a 10.3 hard-upgraded DB, but I don't believe that you can easily have
a 10.2 embedded client accessing a 10.3 hard-upgraded DB.

thanks,

bryan

Re: Backward compatibility question

[Ole Solberg <Ol...@Sun.COM>]

Kathey Marsden wrote:
> David Van Couvering wrote:
>> OK, I got one answer from Bryan (yes for client/server, no for
>> embedded, which makes sense) and one from Kathy (no backward
>> compatibility period).
>>
>> Just want to check -- is client/server backward compatible or not?
>>   
> Sorry David, Bryan is right.  If you start your server with 10.3, you
> can connect with a 10.2 client, although our testing in this area is
> fairly thin.
> 
> Kathey
> 
> 


It is rather thin, but we do some testing in this area:

The tests reported in e.g.
http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/tinderbox_trunk16/jvm1.6/testing/Limited/index.html
,
http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/trunk15/jvm1.5/testing/Limited/index.html
,
http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/trunk16/jvmAll/testing/Limited/index.html
 and
http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/Daily/jvm1.6/testing/Limited/

includes the 'compatibility' /
'.tests.junitTests.compatibility.CompatibilityCombinations' test which
runs the '.../junitTests.compatibility.JDBCDriverTest' on all
combinations of servers and clients (and a set of jvms).

This reports e.g.

 ServerVM-j16lib_server10.3.1.4_vs_ClientVM-j16lib_client10.2.2.0: Time:
0.233 OK (2 tests)

which means client10.2.2.0 was used to connect to a database created
with server10.3.1.4.


Today I also did a run of this test *without re-creating* the database
when switching to newer servers,
i.e. a soft upgrade is done when connecting to the database. This was
also OK:

 ServerVM-j16lib_server10.3.1.4_vs_ClientVM-j16lib_client10.2.2.0: Time:
0.223 OK (2 tests).




Some more info on the
'.tests.junitTests.compatibility.CompatibilityCombinations' test can be
found in DERBY-2316.



(This thread also made me aware I hadn't updated my environment for
10.3.1.4 in this test. Should be OK from tonight.)




-- 
Ole Solberg, Database Technology Group,
Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway

Re: Backward compatibility question

[Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net>]

David Van Couvering wrote:
> OK, I got one answer from Bryan (yes for client/server, no for
> embedded, which makes sense) and one from Kathy (no backward
> compatibility period).
>
> Just want to check -- is client/server backward compatible or not?
>   
Sorry David, Bryan is right.  If you start your server with 10.3, you 
can connect with a 10.2 client, although our testing in this area is 
fairly thin.

Kathey

Re: Backward compatibility question

[David Van Couvering <da...@vancouvering.com>]

OK, I got one answer from Bryan (yes for client/server, no for
embedded, which makes sense) and one from Kathy (no backward
compatibility period).

Just want to check -- is client/server backward compatible or not?

Thanks,

David

On 8/28/07, Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> David Van Couvering wrote:
> > I know I should know this, but I just want to be sure.  If you upgrade
> > a DB from 10.2 to 10.3 (e.g. hard upgrade), I am assuming you can
> > still use a 10.2 driver against that database, is that correct?
> >
> >
> Nope. Hard upgrade is a path of no return.
>
> Kathey
>
>
>

Re: Backward compatibility question

[Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net>]

David Van Couvering wrote:
> I know I should know this, but I just want to be sure.  If you upgrade
> a DB from 10.2 to 10.3 (e.g. hard upgrade), I am assuming you can
> still use a 10.2 driver against that database, is that correct?
>
>   
Nope. Hard upgrade is a path of no return.

Kathey