David W. Van Couvering wrote: > > So, how about > > "Older versions of Derby jars will get their expected behavior in a > mixed version environment regardless of jar ordering. Newer versions > of Derby jars will get new behavior if the newer jar files are loaded > first, and older behavior if the older jar files are loaded first.
I like the sound of it! Now that I know for sure that is what we are promising users, next week I'll try some stuff out with the patch and try to understand how maintaining the internal API backward/forward compatibility will translate into SQL and JDBC compatibility with the masking issues going on. Kathey
