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
