Andrew McIntyre wrote:
If Army doesn't think his code is going to be production-quality in the timeframe of the release we're currently discussing, I think it should be left out, even if it were to be undocumented.
I should clarify. The reason I was thinking that this should not be documented as "official" yet is because the work I've done is based on _working__drafts_ of the SQL/XML syntax--which means we run the risk of the syntax changing in the near future.
It's not that I'm doubting the "production quality" of what I've done--I think what I've written is in good shape and I have spent time creating tests that are thorough enough to make me believe my patch is Derby quality. There is, I admit, one outstanding issue that I still need to investigate further, but that's something I plan to look at after posting the intial patch, so that the review process can carry on while I look at the issue (more on that one issue is coming with the patch).
In re-reading my last email, I see that that wasn't clear--so I'm sorry for the confusion. Yes, I think my patch (to be posted soon) is good enough quality to be in the 10.1 release; my concern is simply in regard to documenting the XML syntax one way and then changing it when the SQL/XML specs are formalized.
Army
