Proposed Solutoin ( Was Re: catch-22: Derby, Mustang, and JCP issue)

[Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>]

Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> On 6/23/06, David Van Couvering <Da...@sun.com> 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 point may have been lost in the discussion, but its still
> important to address this, since this in fact was the original
> proposal and I don't believe it's been directly addressed. From the
> discussion, though, what I'm beginning to ascertain is that we
> shouldn't do anything until the spec is final. But I'm curious what
> Geir thinks about this particular option (vote + hold the release till
> the spec is final).

My personal opinion is that you shouldn't let the Mustang tail wag the
Derby dog.

This was one of the fears I had with Sun bundling Derby into the JDK,
and the irony is that it took a whole 3 days for my fears to be
realized.  I was imagining a problem down the road in some patchlevel
update of the JDK.  Never did it occur to me that Sun couldn't even get
out of the starting gate with this.

  - o -

However, putting that aside, it's really up to the community and I want
 to find a solution that satisfied everyone, including Sun.

I also don't think that you want Mustang to "steal your thunder".  Derby
 should get the attention and kudos it deserves for 10.2, with the
Apache Derby project being the "primary distributor" rather than
Mustang, with Derby doing a "me too" release.

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 with appropriate warning markings.
 I'm going to start working this line w/ the PMO and the JCP.

2) Reject Mark Reinhold's curious claim that a relational database is
actually an implementation of JDBC.  Derby is a relational database that
among a whole array of features and functionality, one just happens to
be DBC4.

3)  Do your 10.2 GA on your own schedule. Serve your user community.
Make people happy.  Bathe in the accolades, get good press coverage,
treat yourself to a nice bottle of wine.  (And put a note in the release
notes that state the the JDBC4 functionality is "pre-spec" or whatever
the new draft spec license requires.)

4) Release 10.2.1 when Mustang goes GA and remove that sentence in the
release notes.

I think in this way, everyone is satisfied.  The ASF is following the
letter of the law wrt JCP specs (as we always have done), a GA release
can be made with the functionality needed by Mustang, Sun doesn't have
to fork Derby, users have no upgrade issues with their "production
version", etc.

Comments?

geir

Re: Proposed Solutoin ( Was Re: catch-22: Derby, Mustang, and JCP issue)

[Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com>]

On 6/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> 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 claim that a relational database is
> actually an implementation of JDBC.  Derby is a relational database that
> among a whole array of features and functionality, one just happens to
> be DBC4.
>
> 3)  Do your 10.2 GA on your own schedule. Serve your user community.
> Make people happy.  Bathe in the accolades, get good press coverage,
> treat yourself to a nice bottle of wine.  (And put a note in the release
> notes that state the the JDBC4 functionality is "pre-spec" or whatever
> the new draft spec license requires.)
>
> 4) Release 10.2.1 when Mustang goes GA and remove that sentence in the
> release notes.
>
> I think in this way, everyone is satisfied.  The ASF is following the
> letter of the law wrt JCP specs (as we always have done), a GA release
> can be made with the functionality needed by Mustang, Sun doesn't have
> to fork Derby, users have no upgrade issues with their "production
> version", etc.
>
> Comments?

+1

Added bonus that Sun can put a version of JavaDB/Derby into the JDK
that is midstream between the two releases, and which is unmodified
from the Derby source in Subversion.

andrew

Re: Proposed Solutoin ( Was Re: catch-22: Derby, Mustang, and JCP issue)

["Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>]

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 and Sun is terrific.

 -jean

> geir
> 
> 
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> 
>>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 with appropriate warning markings.
>>> I'm going to start working this line w/ the PMO and the JCP.
>>>
>>>2) Reject Mark Reinhold's curious claim that a relational database is
>>>actually an implementation of JDBC.  Derby is a relational database that
>>>among a whole array of features and functionality, one just happens to
>>>be DBC4.
>>>
>>>3)  Do your 10.2 GA on your own schedule. Serve your user community.
>>>Make people happy.  Bathe in the accolades, get good press coverage,
>>>treat yourself to a nice bottle of wine.  (And put a note in the release
>>>notes that state the the JDBC4 functionality is "pre-spec" or whatever
>>>the new draft spec license requires.)
>>>
>>>4) Release 10.2.1 when Mustang goes GA and remove that sentence in the
>>>release notes.
>>>
>>>I think in this way, everyone is satisfied.  The ASF is following the
>>>letter of the law wrt JCP specs (as we always have done), a GA release
>>>can be made with the functionality needed by Mustang, Sun doesn't have
>>>to fork Derby, users have no upgrade issues with their "production
>>>version", etc.
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>
>>+1
>>
>> -jean
>>
>>

Re: Proposed Solutoin ( Was Re: catch-22: Derby, Mustang, and JCP issue)

[Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>]

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:
> 
> <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 with appropriate warning markings.
>>  I'm going to start working this line w/ the PMO and the JCP.
>>
>> 2) Reject Mark Reinhold's curious claim that a relational database is
>> actually an implementation of JDBC.  Derby is a relational database that
>> among a whole array of features and functionality, one just happens to
>> be DBC4.
>>
>> 3)  Do your 10.2 GA on your own schedule. Serve your user community.
>> Make people happy.  Bathe in the accolades, get good press coverage,
>> treat yourself to a nice bottle of wine.  (And put a note in the release
>> notes that state the the JDBC4 functionality is "pre-spec" or whatever
>> the new draft spec license requires.)
>>
>> 4) Release 10.2.1 when Mustang goes GA and remove that sentence in the
>> release notes.
>>
>> I think in this way, everyone is satisfied.  The ASF is following the
>> letter of the law wrt JCP specs (as we always have done), a GA release
>> can be made with the functionality needed by Mustang, Sun doesn't have
>> to fork Derby, users have no upgrade issues with their "production
>> version", etc.
>>
>> Comments?
> 
> +1
> 
>  -jean
> 
> 

Re: Proposed Solutoin ( Was Re: catch-22: Derby, Mustang, and JCP issue)

["Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>]

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 with appropriate warning markings.
>  I'm going to start working this line w/ the PMO and the JCP.
> 
> 2) Reject Mark Reinhold's curious claim that a relational database is
> actually an implementation of JDBC.  Derby is a relational database that
> among a whole array of features and functionality, one just happens to
> be DBC4.
> 
> 3)  Do your 10.2 GA on your own schedule. Serve your user community.
> Make people happy.  Bathe in the accolades, get good press coverage,
> treat yourself to a nice bottle of wine.  (And put a note in the release
> notes that state the the JDBC4 functionality is "pre-spec" or whatever
> the new draft spec license requires.)
> 
> 4) Release 10.2.1 when Mustang goes GA and remove that sentence in the
> release notes.
> 
> I think in this way, everyone is satisfied.  The ASF is following the
> letter of the law wrt JCP specs (as we always have done), a GA release
> can be made with the functionality needed by Mustang, Sun doesn't have
> to fork Derby, users have no upgrade issues with their "production
> version", etc.
> 
> Comments?

+1

 -jean