David W. Van Couvering wrote: > I think it's also fair to say that unless explicitly called out in the > table as otherwise, one can assume a publicly documented interface is > Stable. > That sounds good. Just wanted to make sure there is a catch all for this.
>> >> - Derby will at a minimum negotiate down to the lower interface >> revision level: >> - When different versions of Derby client and server are used >> together (in the same or different JVM's) >> - When different jvm versions are used on client and server. >> > > I think this is a solution that provides a guarantee of stability to > the client/server interfaces. I can add this as a note, however. > Yes, a note would be good for clarification. > I think by calling out the *specific* interfaces that the client > depends upon (DRDA, metadata procedures, system stored procedures, > ???) and marking them as Stable or Private Stable is a Really Good > Idea in our attempts to provide the guarantee of client/server > compatiblity. Agreed. > I think the console output format for tools and server should > actually be marked Private -- good > are system stored procedures in the user documentation? http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/dev/ref/crefsqlbuiltinsystemprocedures.html
