David Van Couvering wrote: >I am thinking (and I think Kathey's thinking along the same lines) >perhaps there is a way to either transparently or with very little work >from the user (e.g. a property on the connection URL) make it possible >to isolate loading of Derby classes using some kind of specialized >classloader. > >*If* I can figure something out, this could remove the requirement to >support backward and forward compatibility, which is a serious albatross >right now around shared code. > > > Some how I think the title of this mail should be either: "I think I can find a way to allow mixing of jars of different versions in the same JVM without impact or changes required for existing applications!" In which case I say "Hooray! go for it."
or "Remove mixed jar capability all together because we might be able to provide a workaround for users" In which case I say "Not now! The current regressions planned are scary enough!" Even if the applications can implement the workaround and release their products today, there is the installed user base to worry about, they can have an incidental impact which shouldn't be exacerbated. "Potentially removing compatibility requirements for shared code" is kind of like calling it "Potentially removing the requirement to balance your check book". Sounds neat but is there impact? Kathey
