You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com> on 2006/09/13 19:35:51 UTC
Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
I'm looking for wording we can plug into both the release notes and
strategic pages in the documentation. How does this sound?
This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release. Until a final Java SE 6
release is available, JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when used
with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
Derby with it.
tweaks? comments? corrections?
thanks,
-jean
Re: Why are you giving up???? (Was Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality
in Derby 10.2)
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>
>>On 9/13/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Why are you giving up?
>>>
>>>I still believe there is a possible solution to this, so that the Derby
>>>community can ship with JDBC4 capability - to that end, I'm doing what I
>>>can to try to find a solution with Sun on this.
>>
>>It wasn't clear to me, as I'm sure it was not clear to others, that
>>anyone else was still pursuing a solution that would allow us to ship
>>with the JDBC 4 bits in the binaries. Since the issue got stuck on the
>>Mustang license with the Sun lawyers, and since the Sun people on the
>>list seem to have abandoned the idea, I assumed the search for a
>>solution was over. Thank you for continuing to pursue the issue.
>
>
> I'm hope that I actually help here :)
>
>
>>>Do people not care? I just don't understand. Derby can be the world's
>>>first database with JDBC4 support, so it's there and ready when Mustang
>>>is released.
Note that assuming no changes in the spec, Derby will have a 10.2
release soon that includes JDBC 4.0, but only in source form. So Derby
will be (most likely) the first database with JDBC 4.0 support. As Bernt
said I think we underestimate our users if we think to get functionality
to them we have to provide it in binary form.
I think rather than "not caring", people worked on a solution that would
allow Derby to have a release as soon as possible that would get all the
new functionality into the hands of its users. Given that amount of time
been spent on the JDBC4/Mustang licencing issues so far, no one
(apparently) had the itch to pursue it any further, instead effort is
being spent on getting a release out sooner that does include JDBC 4.0
support.
Geir, if you can find a solution that allows JDBC 4.0 binaries that
would be great, however I don't think we should wait on any possible
outcome. Let's get this release out now, and if a solution is found,
great, let's do another release. If the solution beats the current
release timing, great, there will be a single release, if not, two
releases and the second one with binary JDBC 4 will most likely still
beat Mustang out of the door.
[snip]
> I was also wondering if this could be a plugin - that you drop the
> derby-jdbc4.jar somewhere and it Just Works. That artifact could be
> released separately on the day of JDBC4 finality...
I'm not sure that would help, the main factor on releasing something on
the day JDBC 4 goes GA is the time of the vote on the release. I don't
see how a vote on a new artifact in Derby would be any quicker than the
a complete release. Most likely a minimum of 72 hours, so three days
after Mustang goes GA Derby could have a binary release with JBDC 4.0.
Maybe the time would be quicker with the trick you use in Harmony, votes
closes when all binding votes has been cast, no idea if that could be
used for a release, or if all the DB-PMC would vote quickly.
Thanks,
Dan.
Re: Why are you giving up???? (Was Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality
in Derby 10.2)
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> On 9/13/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Why are you giving up?
>>
>> I still believe there is a possible solution to this, so that the Derby
>> community can ship with JDBC4 capability - to that end, I'm doing what I
>> can to try to find a solution with Sun on this.
>
> It wasn't clear to me, as I'm sure it was not clear to others, that
> anyone else was still pursuing a solution that would allow us to ship
> with the JDBC 4 bits in the binaries. Since the issue got stuck on the
> Mustang license with the Sun lawyers, and since the Sun people on the
> list seem to have abandoned the idea, I assumed the search for a
> solution was over. Thank you for continuing to pursue the issue.
I'm hope that I actually help here :)
>
>> Do people not care? I just don't understand. Derby can be the world's
>> first database with JDBC4 support, so it's there and ready when Mustang
>> is released.
>
> Unless there are some kind of major changes in between our release and
> the Mustang release that cause a major incompatibility on our side.
> Just recently, between b95 and b98 of Mustang, there was a few changes
> that caused major breakage. So if something similar happens between
> now and when Mustang ships, then we have the distinction of shipping
> the first database with really broken JDBC 4 support. I think this was
> Craig's concern. (not one of mine, necessarily, see below)
I understand.
>
>> This means that Sun has to fork Derby, and also JavaDB is therefore
>> more technically advanced than Derby, and no one wants that either. No
>> one wins here. Lets find a solution. I don't think it will take much
>> longer.
>
> Even with the 'optional JDBC 4 functionality not built into the
> binaries' route for 10.2.1, there wouldn't be a need for Sun to fork
> Derby per se, they just wouldn't be shipping Apache's official
> release. They could still ship something mid-stream between 10.2.1 and
> 10.2.2 directly out of the Derby codebase with the JDBC 4
> functionality built in, and I personally wouldn't call that a fork.
That's true, and I guess I did get a little carried away there :) I
was tired, in a plane, in the snow, at night, uphill, both ways...
> It's not clear to me that Sun was ever planning on shipping the
> official 10.2.1 anyway, since I'm pretty sure that Sun wanted to be
> up-to-the-second with the JDBC 4 spec and shipping the official
> release wouldn't let them do that. Can anyone from Sun clarify the
> plans for what would actually go into Mustang?
But how much will the API change towards the end of the spec vote?
Also, I would think that Sun would *want* to relabel a derby release,
because then support issues are much easier for the larger community to
deal with.
I think it would be much better for JavaDB to be in lock-step with
Derby, so a user of JavaDB would to be able to approach the Derby
community regarding questions about the code that could actually be
answered. But this is Sun's call.
>
> Anyway, I'd love to see Mustang ship with Derby, and for us to be able
> to ship 10.2.1 with JDBC 4 support in it sooner rather than later, so
> I'd love to hear the solution being pursued. Would the plan be for Sun
> to release the JDBC 4.0 API as a jar file under the spec license or
> some other compatible license so that we could use a 1.5 compiler to
> build in our JDBC 4 support? That seemed to be what you were
> suggesting in your the last mail.
Yes, and I've heard it's been considered and shot down. I have some
other ideas - let me flesh them out a bit first.
> FTR, I don't find the compatibility concerns with 10.2.1 and Mustang
> terribly onerous, since we would have the JDBC 4.0 functionality
> clearly labelled as 'early and possibly not compatible with the final
> JDBC 4.0 spec,' or whatever language was being worked on, all over the
> docs and release notes. Plus, we could put out our own 10.2.2 with
> whatever changed and be up-to-spec the same week that Mustang is
> released.
Yes.
I was also wondering if this could be a plugin - that you drop the
derby-jdbc4.jar somewhere and it Just Works. That artifact could be
released separately on the day of JDBC4 finality...
geir
>
> cheers,
> andrew
>
>
Re: Why are you giving up???? (Was Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2)
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com>.
On 9/13/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Why are you giving up?
>
> I still believe there is a possible solution to this, so that the Derby
> community can ship with JDBC4 capability - to that end, I'm doing what I
> can to try to find a solution with Sun on this.
It wasn't clear to me, as I'm sure it was not clear to others, that
anyone else was still pursuing a solution that would allow us to ship
with the JDBC 4 bits in the binaries. Since the issue got stuck on the
Mustang license with the Sun lawyers, and since the Sun people on the
list seem to have abandoned the idea, I assumed the search for a
solution was over. Thank you for continuing to pursue the issue.
> Do people not care? I just don't understand. Derby can be the world's
> first database with JDBC4 support, so it's there and ready when Mustang
> is released.
Unless there are some kind of major changes in between our release and
the Mustang release that cause a major incompatibility on our side.
Just recently, between b95 and b98 of Mustang, there was a few changes
that caused major breakage. So if something similar happens between
now and when Mustang ships, then we have the distinction of shipping
the first database with really broken JDBC 4 support. I think this was
Craig's concern. (not one of mine, necessarily, see below)
> This means that Sun has to fork Derby, and also JavaDB is therefore
> more technically advanced than Derby, and no one wants that either. No
> one wins here. Lets find a solution. I don't think it will take much
> longer.
Even with the 'optional JDBC 4 functionality not built into the
binaries' route for 10.2.1, there wouldn't be a need for Sun to fork
Derby per se, they just wouldn't be shipping Apache's official
release. They could still ship something mid-stream between 10.2.1 and
10.2.2 directly out of the Derby codebase with the JDBC 4
functionality built in, and I personally wouldn't call that a fork.
It's not clear to me that Sun was ever planning on shipping the
official 10.2.1 anyway, since I'm pretty sure that Sun wanted to be
up-to-the-second with the JDBC 4 spec and shipping the official
release wouldn't let them do that. Can anyone from Sun clarify the
plans for what would actually go into Mustang?
Anyway, I'd love to see Mustang ship with Derby, and for us to be able
to ship 10.2.1 with JDBC 4 support in it sooner rather than later, so
I'd love to hear the solution being pursued. Would the plan be for Sun
to release the JDBC 4.0 API as a jar file under the spec license or
some other compatible license so that we could use a 1.5 compiler to
build in our JDBC 4 support? That seemed to be what you were
suggesting in your the last mail.
FTR, I don't find the compatibility concerns with 10.2.1 and Mustang
terribly onerous, since we would have the JDBC 4.0 functionality
clearly labelled as 'early and possibly not compatible with the final
JDBC 4.0 spec,' or whatever language was being worked on, all over the
docs and release notes. Plus, we could put out our own 10.2.2 with
whatever changed and be up-to-spec the same week that Mustang is
released.
cheers,
andrew
Why are you giving up???? (Was Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality
in Derby 10.2)
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Why are you giving up?
I still believe there is a possible solution to this, so that the Derby
community can ship with JDBC4 capability - to that end, I'm doing what I
can to try to find a solution with Sun on this.
Do people not care? I just don't understand. Derby can be the world's
first database with JDBC4 support, so it's there and ready when Mustang
is released.
This means that Sun has to fork Derby, and also JavaDB is therefore
more technically advanced than Derby, and no one wants that either. No
one wins here. Lets find a solution. I don't think it will take much
longer.
geir
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> I'm looking for wording we can plug into both the release notes and
> strategic pages in the documentation. How does this sound?
>
>
> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release. Until a final Java SE 6
> release is available, JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when used
> with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
> available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
> Derby with it.
>
> tweaks? comments? corrections?
>
> thanks,
>
> -jean
>
>
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> This looks great. I'd like to roll up David's observation and tweek this
> a bit more:
>
> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
> release is not available yet. JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when
> used with Java SE 6. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
> available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and
> with it build Derby's optional JDBC 4.0 support. Please see the Release
> Notes
> for details on how to build this optional JDBC 4.0 functionality.
> Please also note the licensing restrictions which limit your use
> of beta versions of Java SE 6. The beta JDK may only be used for
> evaluation purposes; the same restriction applies to Derby's
> JDBC 4.0 support when built using the beta version of Java SE 6.
I wouldn't say the last bit, as it looks like the project is stating
that there are restrictions on the codebase. There are none from
Apache. Whatever external agreements that a user may enter into is
really irrelevant.
geir
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Scratch that first attempt -- already caught an ambiguity. Second try:
>>
>> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
>> release is not available yet. JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when
>> used with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>> available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
>> Derby with it.
>>
>> -jean
>>
>> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm looking for wording we can plug into both the release notes and
>>> strategic pages in the documentation. How does this sound?
>>>
>>>
>>> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>>> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release. Until a final Java SE 6
>>> release is available, JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when used
>>> with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>>> available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
>>> Derby with it.
>>>
>>> tweaks? comments? corrections?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> -jean
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
David Van Couvering wrote:
> Hi, Jean, and all, that sounds good. I also agree that the licensing
> stuff can be in release notes. Note that if someone builds JDBC4
> functionality of our 10.2 release with the beta JDK will not be able
> to put it into production use, but if they build it with the GA JDK
> they should be able to. Right?
Hopefully. The bundled Release Notes should probably refer the user to
the website. The website can track incompatibilities, if any, which
accumulate between the time that we ship 10.2 and the time that the JDK
goes GA.
Regards,
-Rick
>
> I would also like to see something like "Derby will be delivering a
> follow-on release with compiled JDBC4 drivers once JDK 6 is generally
> available."
>
> David
>
> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/06, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This sounds fine. I was planning on highlighting the license issue in
>>> the Release Notes anyway.
>>
>>
>> Should we also add a note about compatibility? Something along the
>> lines of:
>>
>> "The JDBC 4.0 support in this version of Derby may not be compatible
>> with the final version of JDBC 4.0."?
>>
>> andrew
>
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by David Van Couvering <Da...@Sun.COM>.
Hi, Jean, and all, that sounds good. I also agree that the licensing
stuff can be in release notes. Note that if someone builds JDBC4
functionality of our 10.2 release with the beta JDK will not be able to
put it into production use, but if they build it with the GA JDK they
should be able to. Right?
I would also like to see something like "Derby will be delivering a
follow-on release with compiled JDBC4 drivers once JDK 6 is generally
available."
David
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> On 9/13/06, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
>>
>> This sounds fine. I was planning on highlighting the license issue in
>> the Release Notes anyway.
>
> Should we also add a note about compatibility? Something along the lines
> of:
>
> "The JDBC 4.0 support in this version of Derby may not be compatible
> with the final version of JDBC 4.0."?
>
> andrew
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> On 9/13/06, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> This sounds fine. I was planning on highlighting the license issue in
>> the Release Notes anyway.
>
>
> Should we also add a note about compatibility? Something along the
> lines of:
>
> "The JDBC 4.0 support in this version of Derby may not be compatible
> with the final version of JDBC 4.0."?
Hi Andrew. Yes, that is a great idea.
Regards,
-Rick
>
> andrew
Re: Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com>.
On 9/13/06, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> This sounds fine. I was planning on highlighting the license issue in
> the Release Notes anyway.
Should we also add a note about compatibility? Something along the lines of:
"The JDBC 4.0 support in this version of Derby may not be compatible
with the final version of JDBC 4.0."?
andrew
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Jean,
This sounds fine. I was planning on highlighting the license issue in
the Release Notes anyway.
Regards,
-Rick
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>how's this for consolidating yours and mine latest:
>
>This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
>release was not available when this release was produced. JDBC 3.0 will
>be available by default when used with a Java SE 6 virtual machine. JDBC
>4.0 functionality will only be available to developers who download Java
>SE 6 themselves and with it build Derby's optional JDBC 4.0 support.
>Please see the Release Notes for details on how to build this optional
>JDBC 4.0 functionality. ***Please also note the licensing restrictions
>which limit your use of beta versions of Java SE 6. The beta JDK may
>only be used for evaluation purposes; the same restriction applies to
>Derby's JDBC 4.0 support when built using the beta version of Java SE 6.***
>
>Can we move the portion I highlighted with *** into the release notes
>since developers will have to look at that info to understand how to
>build in jdbc 4? --I don't think we need to be in the business of
>educating users on the license in the reference guide pages I want to
>update.
>
> -jean
>
>
>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Jean,
>>
>>This looks great. I'd like to roll up David's observation and tweek this
>>a bit more:
>>
>>This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>>enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
>>release is not available yet. JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when
>>used with Java SE 6. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>>available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and
>>with it build Derby's optional JDBC 4.0 support. Please see the Release
>>Notes
>>for details on how to build this optional JDBC 4.0 functionality.
>>Please also note the licensing restrictions which limit your use
>>of beta versions of Java SE 6. The beta JDK may only be used for
>>evaluation purposes; the same restriction applies to Derby's
>>JDBC 4.0 support when built using the beta version of Java SE 6.
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>-Rick
>>
>>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Scratch that first attempt -- already caught an ambiguity. Second try:
>>>
>>>This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>>>enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
>>>release is not available yet. JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when
>>>used with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>>>available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
>>>Derby with it.
>>>
>>>-jean
>>>
>>>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm looking for wording we can plug into both the release notes and
>>>>strategic pages in the documentation. How does this sound?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>>>>enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release. Until a final Java SE 6
>>>>release is available, JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when used
>>>>with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>>>>available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
>>>>Derby with it.
>>>>
>>>>tweaks? comments? corrections?
>>>>
>>>>thanks,
>>>>
>>>>-jean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Laura Stewart wrote:
> On 9/13/06, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
>
>> how's this for consolidating yours and mine latest:
>>
>> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
>> release was not available when this release was produced. JDBC 3.0 will
>> be available by default when used with a Java SE 6 virtual machine. JDBC
>> 4.0 functionality will only be available to developers who download Java
>> SE 6 themselves and with it build Derby's optional JDBC 4.0 support.
>> Please see the Release Notes for details on how to build this optional
>> JDBC 4.0 functionality. ***Please also note the licensing restrictions
>> which limit your use of beta versions of Java SE 6. The beta JDK may
>> only be used for evaluation purposes; the same restriction applies to
>> Derby's JDBC 4.0 support when built using the beta version of Java SE
>> 6.***
>>
>
> Hi Jean -
> Just a couple of things that you might want to be aware of:
>
> * Try to avoid using "it" as in "...themselves and with it build
> Derby's..."
> "it" might refer to several things, and for people for whom English is
> not there first language it can be difficult to determine which thing
> you are referring to. So it would be clearer to say "themselves and
> with Java SE 6, build..." Part of this confusion is because the
> sentence is really long :-)
>
> * It might be good to change this phrase "not available when this
> release was produced" to avoid using "this release". The sentences
> here are are talking about both the Derby and the JDBC releases and it
> is better to specify the release as in "not available when this Derby
> release was produced."
>
> * It is better to avoid concatenations like "Derby's" if you can.
> They can be difficult to translate. For example, ...to Derby's JDBC
> 4.0 support..." would be better as "to the to JDBC 4.0 support in
> Derby".
>
> These are merely suggestions for clarity.
>
Thanks, Laura, I'm already heavily wordsmithing it for readability and
also to shorten (eliminate redundancy in all the ideas compiled). I'll
post samples in a little bit for folks to review.
-jean
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by Laura Stewart <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 9/13/06, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
> how's this for consolidating yours and mine latest:
>
> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
> release was not available when this release was produced. JDBC 3.0 will
> be available by default when used with a Java SE 6 virtual machine. JDBC
> 4.0 functionality will only be available to developers who download Java
> SE 6 themselves and with it build Derby's optional JDBC 4.0 support.
> Please see the Release Notes for details on how to build this optional
> JDBC 4.0 functionality. ***Please also note the licensing restrictions
> which limit your use of beta versions of Java SE 6. The beta JDK may
> only be used for evaluation purposes; the same restriction applies to
> Derby's JDBC 4.0 support when built using the beta version of Java SE 6.***
>
Hi Jean -
Just a couple of things that you might want to be aware of:
* Try to avoid using "it" as in "...themselves and with it build Derby's..."
"it" might refer to several things, and for people for whom English is
not there first language it can be difficult to determine which thing
you are referring to. So it would be clearer to say "themselves and
with Java SE 6, build..." Part of this confusion is because the
sentence is really long :-)
* It might be good to change this phrase "not available when this
release was produced" to avoid using "this release". The sentences
here are are talking about both the Derby and the JDBC releases and it
is better to specify the release as in "not available when this Derby
release was produced."
* It is better to avoid concatenations like "Derby's" if you can.
They can be difficult to translate. For example, ...to Derby's JDBC
4.0 support..." would be better as "to the to JDBC 4.0 support in
Derby".
These are merely suggestions for clarity.
--
Laura Stewart
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
how's this for consolidating yours and mine latest:
This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
release was not available when this release was produced. JDBC 3.0 will
be available by default when used with a Java SE 6 virtual machine. JDBC
4.0 functionality will only be available to developers who download Java
SE 6 themselves and with it build Derby's optional JDBC 4.0 support.
Please see the Release Notes for details on how to build this optional
JDBC 4.0 functionality. ***Please also note the licensing restrictions
which limit your use of beta versions of Java SE 6. The beta JDK may
only be used for evaluation purposes; the same restriction applies to
Derby's JDBC 4.0 support when built using the beta version of Java SE 6.***
Can we move the portion I highlighted with *** into the release notes
since developers will have to look at that info to understand how to
build in jdbc 4? --I don't think we need to be in the business of
educating users on the license in the reference guide pages I want to
update.
-jean
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> This looks great. I'd like to roll up David's observation and tweek this
> a bit more:
>
> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
> release is not available yet. JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when
> used with Java SE 6. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
> available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and
> with it build Derby's optional JDBC 4.0 support. Please see the Release
> Notes
> for details on how to build this optional JDBC 4.0 functionality.
> Please also note the licensing restrictions which limit your use
> of beta versions of Java SE 6. The beta JDK may only be used for
> evaluation purposes; the same restriction applies to Derby's
> JDBC 4.0 support when built using the beta version of Java SE 6.
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Scratch that first attempt -- already caught an ambiguity. Second try:
>>
>> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
>> release is not available yet. JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when
>> used with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>> available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
>> Derby with it.
>>
>> -jean
>>
>> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm looking for wording we can plug into both the release notes and
>>> strategic pages in the documentation. How does this sound?
>>>
>>>
>>> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>>> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release. Until a final Java SE 6
>>> release is available, JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when used
>>> with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>>> available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
>>> Derby with it.
>>>
>>> tweaks? comments? corrections?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> -jean
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Jean,
This looks great. I'd like to roll up David's observation and tweek this
a bit more:
This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
release is not available yet. JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when
used with Java SE 6. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and
with it build Derby's optional JDBC 4.0 support. Please see the Release Notes
for details on how to build this optional JDBC 4.0 functionality.
Please also note the licensing restrictions which limit your use
of beta versions of Java SE 6. The beta JDK may only be used for
evaluation purposes; the same restriction applies to Derby's
JDBC 4.0 support when built using the beta version of Java SE 6.
Thanks,
-Rick
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>Scratch that first attempt -- already caught an ambiguity. Second try:
>
>This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
>release is not available yet. JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when
>used with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
>Derby with it.
>
> -jean
>
>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>
>>I'm looking for wording we can plug into both the release notes and
>>strategic pages in the documentation. How does this sound?
>>
>>
>>This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>>enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release. Until a final Java SE 6
>>release is available, JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when used
>>with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>>available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
>>Derby with it.
>>
>>tweaks? comments? corrections?
>>
>>thanks,
>>
>> -jean
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> David Van Couvering wrote:
>
>>Thanks, Jean.
>>
>>A couple of things
>>
>>"when used with a Java SE 6 beta build" - I think we should clarify this
>>by saying "when run with a Java SE 6 virtual machine".
>
> excellent correction -- thanks.
>
>>This will be
>>true whether the Java SE 6 they are using is beta or not, and I think it
>>is important to clarify this as runtime behavior.
>
> JDBC 3 will still be the default with the Java SE 6 final release? Ok;
> probably I didn't follow some discussions closely enough.
sorry, I see exactly what you mean now -- and it's actually what
prompted me to push out that first revision.
How does this sound (still need to nail down build-it-yourself info):
This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
release was not available when this release was produced. JDBC 3.0 will
be available by default when used with a Java SE 6 virtual machine. JDBC
4.0 functionality will only be available to developers who download Java
SE 6 themselves and build Derby with it [more info TBD, maybe include
reference to Andrew's script, or maybe to a wiki page?].
getting better?
thanks,
-jean
>
>>"build Derby with it" - I hope a user doesn't have to build *all* of
>>Derby, but instead incrementally build in JDBC4 support such that it is
>>added to the existing jar files. Or is a complete rebuild required?
>
>
> Good question. Andrew is working on a script [1]. If that jells, maybe
> this wording could mention that.
>
>
>>Also, once they build in JDBC4 support, will JDBC4 be the default when
>>running with a Java SE 6 VM?
>
>
> Up above you said the JDBC 3 is still the default, so I'm confused.
>
> -jean
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200609.mbox/%3c54ac72d70609131008ye629ce1ia713a4464650aac8@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
>
>>David
>>
>>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Scratch that first attempt -- already caught an ambiguity. Second try:
>>>
>>>This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>>>enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
>>>release is not available yet. JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when
>>>used with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>>>available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
>>>Derby with it.
>>>
>>> -jean
>>>
>>>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm looking for wording we can plug into both the release notes and
>>>>strategic pages in the documentation. How does this sound?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>>>>enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release. Until a final Java SE 6
>>>>release is available, JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when used
>>>>with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>>>>available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
>>>>Derby with it.
>>>>
>>>>tweaks? comments? corrections?
>>>>
>>>>thanks,
>>>>
>>>> -jean
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
David Van Couvering wrote:
> Thanks, Jean.
>
> A couple of things
>
> "when used with a Java SE 6 beta build" - I think we should clarify this
> by saying "when run with a Java SE 6 virtual machine".
excellent correction -- thanks.
> This will be
> true whether the Java SE 6 they are using is beta or not, and I think it
> is important to clarify this as runtime behavior.
JDBC 3 will still be the default with the Java SE 6 final release? Ok;
probably I didn't follow some discussions closely enough.
> "build Derby with it" - I hope a user doesn't have to build *all* of
> Derby, but instead incrementally build in JDBC4 support such that it is
> added to the existing jar files. Or is a complete rebuild required?
Good question. Andrew is working on a script [1]. If that jells, maybe
this wording could mention that.
> Also, once they build in JDBC4 support, will JDBC4 be the default when
> running with a Java SE 6 VM?
Up above you said the JDBC 3 is still the default, so I'm confused.
-jean
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200609.mbox/%3c54ac72d70609131008ye629ce1ia713a4464650aac8@mail.gmail.com%3e
> David
>
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Scratch that first attempt -- already caught an ambiguity. Second try:
>>
>> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
>> release is not available yet. JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when
>> used with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>> available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
>> Derby with it.
>>
>> -jean
>>
>> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> I'm looking for wording we can plug into both the release notes and
>>> strategic pages in the documentation. How does this sound?
>>>
>>>
>>> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>>> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release. Until a final Java SE 6
>>> release is available, JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when used
>>> with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>>> available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
>>> Derby with it.
>>>
>>> tweaks? comments? corrections?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> -jean
>>
>>
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by David Van Couvering <Da...@Sun.COM>.
Thanks, Jean.
A couple of things
"when used with a Java SE 6 beta build" - I think we should clarify this
by saying "when run with a Java SE 6 virtual machine". This will be
true whether the Java SE 6 they are using is beta or not, and I think it
is important to clarify this as runtime behavior.
"build Derby with it" - I hope a user doesn't have to build *all* of
Derby, but instead incrementally build in JDBC4 support such that it is
added to the existing jar files. Or is a complete rebuild required?
Also, once they build in JDBC4 support, will JDBC4 be the default when
running with a Java SE 6 VM?
David
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Scratch that first attempt -- already caught an ambiguity. Second try:
>
> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
> release is not available yet. JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when
> used with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
> available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
> Derby with it.
>
> -jean
>
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>> I'm looking for wording we can plug into both the release notes and
>> strategic pages in the documentation. How does this sound?
>>
>>
>> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
>> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release. Until a final Java SE 6
>> release is available, JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when used
>> with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
>> available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
>> Derby with it.
>>
>> tweaks? comments? corrections?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> -jean
>
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Scratch that first attempt -- already caught an ambiguity. Second try:
This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release because a final Java SE 6
release is not available yet. JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when
used with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
Derby with it.
-jean
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> I'm looking for wording we can plug into both the release notes and
> strategic pages in the documentation. How does this sound?
>
>
> This documentation references new JDBC 4.0 functionality that is not
> enabled in this Apache Derby 10.2 release. Until a final Java SE 6
> release is available, JDBC 3.0 will be available by default when used
> with a Java SE 6 beta build. JDBC 4.0 functionality will only be
> available to developers who download Java SE 6 themselves and build
> Derby with it.
>
> tweaks? comments? corrections?
>
> thanks,
>
> -jean
Re: Doc notice for JDBC 4 functionality in Derby 10.2
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Thanks for all the suggestions, David, Rick, and Andrew. I reopened
DERBY-1271 and will post a sample this afternoon to it that incorporates
everyone's feedback -- and provide an opportunity to provide even more.
I think it'll help to see the sample wording in context.
thanks,
-jean