Vemund Ostgaard wrote:
One thing that confused me with the original problem was that I got an exception for db2jcc.jar but not for db2jcc_license_c.jar. When I looked at the code I discovered that they were treated differently.
This is true. I don't totally understand how db2jcc_license_c.jar works, but if you examine it, you'll see that it doesn't actually contain any code. Therefore, we don't have the DERBY-668 issues with the license jar that we have with the JCC driver jar. Sysinfo does some special things with the JCC license jar: it prints a line for the jar, containing the information that it received from the classpath, and it prints information about the version of that jar. But the version information actually comes from the JCC jar proper. So while I agree that sysinfo's handling of the license jar can be confusing, I don't think it should be changed as part of this patch. thanks, bryan
