Andrew McIntyre wrote: > > On Oct 20, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote: > >> Is this ok? A vote that refers to a page that is by definition >> updateable? This means there will be no records in the archives on what >> exactly was voted on. Maybe the wiki page could be extracted into the >> call to vote e-mail. > > > This is why wikis are nice, but STATUS is really the place to keep a > record of important votes and proposal type information for > posterity. I think it's OK to have the vote on the proposal, but then > the vote and proposal should then be recorded in STATUS, and the web > page for the proposal should move from the wiki to a permanent place > in the website. > Perhaps for the voting part it would be good to have a short ballot measure summarizing what we are doing, the externalized product impact and the general strategy. This would be something that would not monopolize the STATUS file and could be understood by those who are really only interested in the product impact. Those with a keen interest in implementation details can continue to review and change the Wiki page. Perhaps something like...
Implement a framework to allow code sharing across the product jars that will allow derbyclient.jar, derby.jar and derbytools.jar of the same major version to be loaded in a Java VM without having to use specialized classloaders. If the major version of the jars loaded in a JVM differ, the user will need to separate the two versions by using separate classloaders. Code sharing will be implemented by versioning and deprecating internal API's. The implementation will not have any significant impact on jar file size or otherwise affect product distribution or usage. That's just a stab at it, but I think it has most of the parts that are really controversial, covers the significant risk areas, and makes it clear that users can no longer mix jars across major versions. I think it is good to be clear about that since as I see it, that is currently the only proposed change to external behaviour. The Wiki page says that developers should try to avoid breaking compatiblity across major versions and that's fine, but makes no committment, so it is best if we just document that it won't work. Kathey
