David W. Van Couvering wrote: > Great. I have to say your part about how this "will translate into > SQL and JDBC compatibility with the masking issues going on" has me a > bit stumped -- can you explain in some more detail?
Let me play with it a bit before we get into more discussion, but basically what I am thinking about is things like: DERBY - 396 - In expanding functionality for ALTER STATEMENT , in a mixed jar environment the existing 10.1 syntax should still work even if some of the changes for the enhancement are in shared classes. I updated the Wiki page to include your new wording under Mixed Version Support. I think it is a clear description of the product behaviour that users and developers can understand before trying to understand the underlying implementation. Thanks Kathey
