10.2 licensing issue

[Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>]

I must report today that the restrictions imposed by the beta JDK 
license have not been lifted.

As you know, the JDK 6 beta license requires a disclaimer that bars the 
use of the code for any productive use. This restriction is meant to 
forestall binary incompatibilities with the final, GA version of the 
JDK. These incompatibilities might arise due to late-breaking changes in 
the JDK during its beta cycle. Due to these late-breaking changes, 
applications compiled against earlier, beta versions of the JDK could 
behave erratically when run against the GA JDK.

Such a disclaimer would need to appear in the NOTICES file of any Derby 
release built using the beta JDK's tools and libraries. This, in turn, 
is unacceptable for GA releases of Derby. Therefore at this time we 
cannot build a Derby release candidate which includes JDBC4 
drivers--today those drivers can only be built using beta tools and 
libraries.  For this reason, we, the Derby community must change our 
plan to ship imminently an official release of Derby that includes JDBC4.

I can see two alternatives for us:

1. Ship 10.2 on the current schedule but do not include the JDBC4 
drivers. When run on Java SE 6, Derby 10.2 would  continue to expose our 
JDBC3 implementation. In addition, we  would remove JDBC4-specific 
documentation from our user guides and prune out the JDBC4-specific javadoc.

2. Delay the current 10.2 schedule until after JDK 6 goes GA. At that 
time we could release a version of Derby which includes JDBC4 drivers.

Given the length of time since 10.1 was released, the uncertainty of the 
exact date of JDK 6 shipment, and the number of new features included in 
10.2, I think that (1) is a better plan. Of course, this is up to the 
community to decide.

Regards,
-Rick

Re: 10.2 licensing issue

[Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>]

Andrew McIntyre wrote:

> On 9/11/06, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I can see two alternatives for us:
>>
>> 1. Ship 10.2 on the current schedule but do not include the JDBC4
>> drivers. When run on Java SE 6, Derby 10.2 would  continue to expose our
>> JDBC3 implementation. In addition, we  would remove JDBC4-specific
>> documentation from our user guides and prune out the JDBC4-specific 
>> javadoc.
>>
>> 2. Delay the current 10.2 schedule until after JDK 6 goes GA. At that
>> time we could release a version of Derby which includes JDBC4 drivers.
>>
>> Given the length of time since 10.1 was released, the uncertainty of the
>> exact date of JDK 6 shipment, and the number of new features included in
>
>
> +1 to option one, then.
>
> Should we plan to have another release with JDBC 4 once JDK 1.6 ships?
>
> andrew

+1

I think that would be a great idea.

Regards,
-Rick

Re: 10.2 licensing issue

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

On 9/11/06, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> I can see two alternatives for us:
>
> 1. Ship 10.2 on the current schedule but do not include the JDBC4
> drivers. When run on Java SE 6, Derby 10.2 would  continue to expose our
> JDBC3 implementation. In addition, we  would remove JDBC4-specific
> documentation from our user guides and prune out the JDBC4-specific javadoc.
>
> 2. Delay the current 10.2 schedule until after JDK 6 goes GA. At that
> time we could release a version of Derby which includes JDBC4 drivers.
>
> Given the length of time since 10.1 was released, the uncertainty of the
> exact date of JDK 6 shipment, and the number of new features included in

+1 to option one, then.

Should we plan to have another release with JDBC 4 once JDK 1.6 ships?

andrew

Re: 10.2 licensing issue

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

Wow! Thanks for the update, Rick. I agree that option #1 (release 10.2
without JDBC 4) is best.

 -jean

Rick Hillegas wrote:
> I must report today that the restrictions imposed by the beta JDK
> license have not been lifted.
> 
> As you know, the JDK 6 beta license requires a disclaimer that bars the
> use of the code for any productive use. This restriction is meant to
> forestall binary incompatibilities with the final, GA version of the
> JDK. These incompatibilities might arise due to late-breaking changes in
> the JDK during its beta cycle. Due to these late-breaking changes,
> applications compiled against earlier, beta versions of the JDK could
> behave erratically when run against the GA JDK.
> 
> Such a disclaimer would need to appear in the NOTICES file of any Derby
> release built using the beta JDK's tools and libraries. This, in turn,
> is unacceptable for GA releases of Derby. Therefore at this time we
> cannot build a Derby release candidate which includes JDBC4
> drivers--today those drivers can only be built using beta tools and
> libraries.  For this reason, we, the Derby community must change our
> plan to ship imminently an official release of Derby that includes JDBC4.
> 
> I can see two alternatives for us:
> 
> 1. Ship 10.2 on the current schedule but do not include the JDBC4
> drivers. When run on Java SE 6, Derby 10.2 would  continue to expose our
> JDBC3 implementation. In addition, we  would remove JDBC4-specific
> documentation from our user guides and prune out the JDBC4-specific
> javadoc.
> 
> 2. Delay the current 10.2 schedule until after JDK 6 goes GA. At that
> time we could release a version of Derby which includes JDBC4 drivers.
> 
> Given the length of time since 10.1 was released, the uncertainty of the
> exact date of JDK 6 shipment, and the number of new features included in
> 10.2, I think that (1) is a better plan. Of course, this is up to the
> community to decide.
> 
> Regards,
> -Rick

Re: 10.2 licensing issue

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

Rick Hillegas wrote:

> I can see two alternatives for us:

> 1. Ship 10.2 on the current schedule but do not include the JDBC4 
> drivers. When run on Java SE 6, Derby 10.2 would  continue to expose 
> our JDBC3 implementation. In addition, we  would remove JDBC4-specific 
> documentation from our user guides and prune out the JDBC4-specific 
> javadoc.
>
> 2. Delay the current 10.2 schedule until after JDK 6 goes GA. At that 
> time we could release a version of Derby which includes JDBC4 drivers.
>
> Given the length of time since 10.1 was released, the uncertainty of 
> the exact date of JDK 6 shipment, and the number of new features 
> included in 10.2, I think that (1) is a better plan. Of course, this 
> is up to the community to decide.
>
 I do not think we have enough user feedback for 10.2 release just based 
on regression risk.  We heard that the JDO tests passed and the Torque 
tutorial ran.  We got a few questions on the list about how to 
upgrade.   We got serious  feedback from a single user who reported 
multiple serious optimizer regressions.   That's it as far as I can tell 
from users. We got quite a few regression reports from development  that 
folks stumbled upon.  

Many of these regressions sadly have already made their way into 10.1.3  
and therefore are being picked up by users for production.  If this were 
a medical trial for a blood pressure medicine and not a database what 
would we do?  Our one patient in the trial of our next generation 
medication is finding multiple issues that have made him very sick and 
we find that many of these same regressions are in pharmacies now.   I 
think we need to notify the user community of the situation, try to get 
more user input on 10.2 and  flush out more regressions.   We port fixes 
to 10.1 to try to get it to  a stable state and then release 10.2.  Also 
any ideas anyone has for new optimizer tests would be good and folks 
could write those. 

Those are all my ideas for now.  It could be that lots of users  have 
tried 10.2 without problems but haven't reported in and then it is just 
a matter of getting them to speak up.  I will work to rattle the bushes 
around here and please ping groups where you work and ask them to try 
10.2.  I will also send a message to the  user list to try to get more 
user input.

 See feedback I know of at :
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/RegressionSearchAndDestroy
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/TenTwoApplicationTesting

Kathey