Yes, I came to the conclusion that the whole feature management
framework was just too complex and error-prone. I am of the strong
opinion now that any solution we come up with for shared code should not
rely upon backward/forward compatibility guarantees and associated
frameworks.
I think we have two good possibilities, one we know that works but is a
bit unintuitive (the code copying solution proposed by Kathey) and the
classloader work (which I have working for the most part but which does
add complexity to Derby). If the classloader solution is not
acceptable, we can fall back to code copying. Although any solution put
forward will need to go to a vote.
David
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
build works now, looks good. Thanks, David!
On Jan 20, 2006, at 9:01 AM, David W. Van Couvering wrote:
This was based on feedback by Dan from my last patch, that having the
common stuff at the top level was a bit of a bug; it's better for
each "shared component" to have its own package (e.g. shared.drda,
shared.common, shared.security, etc.).
I should update the Wiki page to reflect this.
A second read through package.html made it a bit more clear. The
contents of shared.common are meant to be 'truly universal' whereas
other subpackages of shared may not be.
Also, are the CommonFeatures/Info classes going away with the
classloader work? I noticed they were also absent with this patch.
(Sorry if that's also in a previous mail, I'm having trouble searching
my mail at the moment).
andrew
begin:vcard
fn:David W Van Couvering
n:Van Couvering;David W
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc.;Database Technology Group
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Staff Software Engineer
tel;work:510-550-6819
tel;cell:510-684-7281
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
