-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mike Matrigali wrote:
> In this case I think it is good that a quick implementation of intersect > and except has been submitted. Especially with new standard features it > gives the community something to test that the feature is correct. I > believe these features will allow more applications to ported over to > derby and thus give us more early feedback on what is important to do > next. The earlier it > is submitted the more tests that can be submitted. My comments in this thread are general comments and not related to Jack's changes, that's why I changed the subject. > If it runs too slow then performance can be addressed. Performance can only be addressed later if the foundation is good, if the foundation is bad then a re-write is needed which wastes time. I just don't think the standard approach to any feature should be code now and worry about performance later (when is "later" and who is going to do it?). Thinking a little about the design and bouncing it off the community early can only help a feature, and the quality of Derby. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/NothingIsSimple.html And yes, I think an incremental approach to development is great, given a good design. But since I can't read minds, I would need a contributor to indicate that the patch is part of an incremental approach or they believe the feature is complete. Dan. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBuh58Iv0S4qsbfuQRAkQ+AJ9uHqZsIM5pb3BAZmarVy6+EvcSlgCgkWpe hNn7k1ScMgLph51J+VgXNGY= =XmqE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
