Jeremy Boynes wrote: > David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>> Can't you have the situation where common 10.2 and common 10.3 are >> both included in the classpath (by accident, as Dan brings up)? >> Wouldn't you end up with order dependencies then? I feel my scenario keeps being misrepresented by the choice of terms used to decribe it. Using 'accident' makes it sounds as though it's not an important problem to deal with, as seen in Jeremy's reponse here: > To what extent do we need to cater for accidents? The end user didn't accidently install two applications, they chose to and didn't realise/know that one used client at version 10.2 and one used engine at version 10.3. In many cases the use of Derby engine is hidden by the application developer. Dan.
