Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> I think there are two basic problems here: > > 1) How do we provide implementations of the JDBC interfaces? > The problem here is that JDBC3.0 (JDK1.4/1.5) added classes > to the API in java.sql that are not present in JDK1.3 or JSR169 > JVMs. > > Perhaps the solution here is to have two separate modules that > implement the APIs and which are compiled with the appropriate VM. > We can avoid post-compilation hacks and although we could use source > code pre-processing I would suggest it may not be necessary as the > modules would mostly just be delegating to internal Derby classes > making it trivial to support two separate code trees. Hopefully I made it clear in my other e-mail, but the issue is not how the code is laid out, but do we want to require Derby contributors & committers to download multiple JDKs to build Derby, or a single one? And how do I make progress on J2ME if developers cannot download a J2ME environment? Dan.
