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 Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM> on 2007/07/30 19:11:34 UTC
J2ME rev level
What rev level of CDC/Foundation are we claiming to support in 10.3?
CDC/Foundation 1.0 or CDC/Foundation 1.1? I notice that the 10.3 code
includes calls to Throwable.initCause(), which I thought was not
supported in CDC/Foundation 1.0. See
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2210
Thanks,
-Rick
Re: J2ME rev level
Posted by Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@Sun.COM>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Thanks, Knut. This is very helpful. So here's a revised summary:
>
> 1) Derby 10.3 will NOT run on a CDC/Foundation 1.0 implementation.
> Attempts to do so will raise UnsupportedClassVersionError.
>
> 2) Derby 10.3 will run on CDC/Foundation 1.1 implementations. In this
> configuration, Derby satisfies the stripped down JDBC api of JSR 169
> rather than JDBC 3.0 or 4.0.
Thanks Rick, this sounds correct to me (although I've never actually
tested it). Perhaps someone who uses these platforms could verify it.
--
Knut Anders
Re: J2ME rev level
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>> On 7/30/07, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What rev level of CDC/Foundation are we claiming to support in 10.3?
>>>> CDC/Foundation 1.0 or CDC/Foundation 1.1? I notice that the 10.3 code
>>>> includes calls to Throwable.initCause(), which I thought was not
>>>> supported in CDC/Foundation 1.0. See
>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2210
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Rick
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I thought DERBY-2210 and DERBY-2228 indicate the move to Foundation
>>> 1.1.
>>> But, these issues do say it was supposed to be backwards compatible to
>>> 1.0, I think?
>>>
>>> Which may not be true because of DERBY-2472... & revision
>>> 520663...and others?
>
> DERBY-2210 says that Foundation 1.1 is backward compatible with
> Foundation 1.0 (that is, an application written for 1.0 should work on
> 1.1), not that Derby is compatible with Foundation 1.0. It also
> mentions that the change will allow use of initCause(), so I don't
> think the intention was to be compatible with 1.0.
>
>>> Myrna
>>>
>> Thanks for pointers to those other JIRAs, Myrna. It looks as though
>> the following may be the case:
>>
>> 1) Derby implements the CDC/Foundation 1.0 api.
>>
>> 2) However, Derby runs on CDC/Foundation 1.1 implementations provided
>> that the application does not invoke any incremental api introduced
>> by CDC/Foundation 1.1.
>
> I'm not sure the above statements are quite accurate. Derby does not
> implement the Foundation 1.0 (or 1.1) API. That would be similar to
> saying that Derby implements Java SE 6. I also don't think there is
> anything in Derby that will make applications fail if they use new
> methods in the Foundation 1.1 API. What Derby implements, is the JDBC
> 3.0 subset specified in JSR-169. The Foundation 1.0/1.1 specs do not
> include the java.sql and javax.sql packages, so no API changes were
> required for Derby when moving from Foundation 1.0 to 1.1.
>
>> 3) When run on a CDC/Foundation 1.0 implementation, Derby may raise
>> method-not-found exceptions. This may happen if Derby error
>> processing tries to invoke Throwable.initCause().
>
> I don't think a CDC/Foundation 1.0 implementation will be able to load
> the classes in derby.jar since it is on JVM level 1.3 and Derby is
> compiled with source level and target level set to 1.4.
>
Thanks, Knut. This is very helpful. So here's a revised summary:
1) Derby 10.3 will NOT run on a CDC/Foundation 1.0 implementation.
Attempts to do so will raise UnsupportedClassVersionError.
2) Derby 10.3 will run on CDC/Foundation 1.1 implementations. In this
configuration, Derby satisfies the stripped down JDBC api of JSR 169
rather than JDBC 3.0 or 4.0.
It appears that DERBY-2228 and DERBY-2472 have been closed. What work
remains to be done on DERBY-2210?
Thanks,
-Rick
Re: J2ME rev level
Posted by Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@Sun.COM>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>> On 7/30/07, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What rev level of CDC/Foundation are we claiming to support in 10.3?
>>> CDC/Foundation 1.0 or CDC/Foundation 1.1? I notice that the 10.3 code
>>> includes calls to Throwable.initCause(), which I thought was not
>>> supported in CDC/Foundation 1.0. See
>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2210
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Rick
>>>
>>>
>> I thought DERBY-2210 and DERBY-2228 indicate the move to Foundation 1.1.
>> But, these issues do say it was supposed to be backwards compatible to
>> 1.0, I think?
>>
>> Which may not be true because of DERBY-2472... & revision 520663...and
>> others?
DERBY-2210 says that Foundation 1.1 is backward compatible with
Foundation 1.0 (that is, an application written for 1.0 should work on
1.1), not that Derby is compatible with Foundation 1.0. It also mentions
that the change will allow use of initCause(), so I don't think the
intention was to be compatible with 1.0.
>> Myrna
>>
> Thanks for pointers to those other JIRAs, Myrna. It looks as though the
> following may be the case:
>
> 1) Derby implements the CDC/Foundation 1.0 api.
>
> 2) However, Derby runs on CDC/Foundation 1.1 implementations provided
> that the application does not invoke any incremental api introduced by
> CDC/Foundation 1.1.
I'm not sure the above statements are quite accurate. Derby does not
implement the Foundation 1.0 (or 1.1) API. That would be similar to
saying that Derby implements Java SE 6. I also don't think there is
anything in Derby that will make applications fail if they use new
methods in the Foundation 1.1 API. What Derby implements, is the JDBC
3.0 subset specified in JSR-169. The Foundation 1.0/1.1 specs do not
include the java.sql and javax.sql packages, so no API changes were
required for Derby when moving from Foundation 1.0 to 1.1.
> 3) When run on a CDC/Foundation 1.0 implementation, Derby may raise
> method-not-found exceptions. This may happen if Derby error processing
> tries to invoke Throwable.initCause().
I don't think a CDC/Foundation 1.0 implementation will be able to load
the classes in derby.jar since it is on JVM level 1.3 and Derby is
compiled with source level and target level set to 1.4.
--
Knut Anders
Re: J2ME rev level
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
>
>> What rev level of CDC/Foundation are we claiming to support in 10.3?
>> CDC/Foundation 1.0 or CDC/Foundation 1.1? I notice that the 10.3 code
>> includes calls to Throwable.initCause(), which I thought was not
>> supported in CDC/Foundation 1.0. See
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2210
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Rick
>>
>>
> I thought DERBY-2210 and DERBY-2228 indicate the move to Foundation 1.1.
> But, these issues do say it was supposed to be backwards compatible to
> 1.0, I think?
>
> Which may not be true because of DERBY-2472... & revision 520663...and others?
>
> Myrna
>
Thanks for pointers to those other JIRAs, Myrna. It looks as though the
following may be the case:
1) Derby implements the CDC/Foundation 1.0 api.
2) However, Derby runs on CDC/Foundation 1.1 implementations provided
that the application does not invoke any incremental api introduced by
CDC/Foundation 1.1.
3) When run on a CDC/Foundation 1.0 implementation, Derby may raise
method-not-found exceptions. This may happen if Derby error processing
tries to invoke Throwable.initCause().
Regards,
-Rick
Re: J2ME rev level
Posted by Myrna van Lunteren <m....@gmail.com>.
On 7/30/07, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
> What rev level of CDC/Foundation are we claiming to support in 10.3?
> CDC/Foundation 1.0 or CDC/Foundation 1.1? I notice that the 10.3 code
> includes calls to Throwable.initCause(), which I thought was not
> supported in CDC/Foundation 1.0. See
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2210
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>
I thought DERBY-2210 and DERBY-2228 indicate the move to Foundation 1.1.
But, these issues do say it was supposed to be backwards compatible to
1.0, I think?
Which may not be true because of DERBY-2472... & revision 520663...and others?
Myrna