On 24.04.2013 23:03, Rick Hillegas wrote: > As we talk through this, I'm now thinking that we could just as easily > get rid of the jdbc4 version of the javadoc and keep the jdbc3 > javadoc. For backward compatibility reasons, we wouldn't remove the > jdbc4 classes from the product. But since they would be vacuous, I > don't see any need to document them. Going forward, users would be > encouraged to create an instance of EmbeddedDataSource rather than its > vacuous extension, EmbeddedDataSource40. Note: there is no CP2 version of the JDBC3 data sources, that is, we have only "40"-full names (for the client, similarly for embedded):
BasicClientConnectionPoolDataSource40.java BasicClientDataSource40.java BasicClientXADataSource40.java so we would possibly have to introduce "40"-less variants. Thanks, Dag > > Thanks, > -Rick >
