Dag H. Wanvik wrote: >Knut Anders Hatlen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> >>>Rick Hillegas wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>So, I'm unclear: Are you still blocking metadata changes or are you >>>>satisfied with the analysis done so far by Knut Anders and Dyre? Can >>>>we proceed with metadata checkins provided that: >>>> >>>>1) Such patches clearly describe acceptable upgrade behavior >>>>2) Clean upgrade test results accompany the submissions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>I think that this would be fine and in addition would hope that any >>>metadata queries changed/added were covered as part of the ugprade test. >>> >>> >>I think it would be good if the upgrade test also ran metadata tests >>in the DerbyNetClient framework. The only known upgrade issue in 10.2 >>is DERBY-1176, but it is not exposed by the upgrade test since it is >>only seen in client/server mode. >> >> > >It would be nice it that were added. > >Client SUR changes some metadata (in metadata_net.properties) and >relies on DERBY-1176 for correct operation under upgrade for some >metadata queries, cf. the DERBY-775 write-up. > >As I was working with DERBY-775, it struck me that the JCC client >might get problems when metadata_net.properties is updated to reflect >Derby client capabilities not necessarily present in the JCC driver. >Should there perhaps be different code paths for the two drivers(JCC, >DerbyNetClient) wrt SYSIBM metadata? Not my itch, but... > > >
I am not clear on the specific issue you are referring to, but such compatibility issues would I think also exist when running with the original client release, Derby 10.1 and the new server. No ? Kathey
