Meant to send this to the list...
David
--- Begin Message ---
I believe it is OK for us to change the docs. Cloudscape does this all
the time and it's not considered a fork. We did this for Derby 10.1.
David
Lars Heill wrote:
There is still the issue of the JDBC3/4 disclaimer in the docs, though.
-- Lars
David Van Couvering wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't there a "Plan 9", where we
take the 10.2.1.x release that has JDBC4 source but not binaries, and
then take that as is, build the JDBC4 binaries using the JDK 6
compiler, and ship that as Java DB? There are no source changes, the
only difference is we are compiling. I don't see how this could be
considered a fork...
David
Craig L Russell wrote:
I think we can use Geir M's comments to our advantage.
I also believe that with the community support of Dan's Option B,
10.2 with binary jdbc3 support and source jdbc4 support is a resolved
issue. Rick will confirm with the community that this is the plan and
make appropriate changes to the release.
If we want Sun to ship a jdbc4-enabled release of JavaDB and not fork
Derby, we want the Derby community to produce a binary release
candidate that has jdbc4 enabled, very soon after 10.2 is released.
What does this mean for JavaDB?
Plan 6: Ship JavaDB 10.2.2.1 GA with Mustang
We can propose that Derby produce a 10.2.2.1 with jdbc4 enabled right
after shipping 10.2.1. Apache is loath to add licensing restrictions
to its releases, so we want the 10.2.2.1 to be release candidate with
jdbc4 support just as we want it for JavaDB to be packaged with Mustang.
Since 10.2.2.1 is "just a release candidate" there's no need to vote
on it in the community for us to use it as JavaDB for Mustang. And
assuming that there are no howlers found that need to be fixed, as
soon as Mustang goes public, Derby can vote to release, and thereby
satisfy Geir M's request for "the first non-Sun JDBC4 compliant
database".
If there are howlers lurking, they can be fixed on the 10.2.1 line
and released as 10.2.1.x if necessary. And they can be fixed in
10.2.2.2, and released as the official jdbc4 Derby product. So Derby
might have a higher quality release at Mustang ship than JavaDB,
which shipped 10.2.2.1 with howlers.
Plan 7: Ship JavaDB 10.2.2.1 EA with Mustang (Derby community might
balk)
We can propose that Derby produce a 10.2.2.1 EA with jdbc4 enabled
right after shipping 10.2.1. This release is billed as EA jdbc4
support and includes the licensing restrictions in its NOTICE file.
This is just as we want it for JavaDB to be packaged with Mustang.
Since 10.2.2.1 is EA, there's no need to vote on it in the community
for us to use it as JavaDB for Mustang. And assuming that there are
no howlers found that need to be fixed, after Mustang goes public,
Derby can change it to be a GA release, remove the NOTICE
restrictions, and then release, thereby satisfy Geir M's request for
"the first non-Sun JDBC4 compliant database".
If there are howlers lurking, they can be fixed on the 10.2.1 line
and released if necessary. And they can be fixed in 10.2.2.2, and
released as the official jdbc4 Derby line. So Derby might have a
higher quality release at Mustang ship than JavaDB, which shipped
10.2.2.1 with howlers.
Craig
On Sep 14, 2006, at 9:11 AM, Michelle Caisse wrote:
Masood Mortazavi wrote:
He's trying to "poke" us ...
Apparently, according to the Sun party he has called, Geir M. is
not having any extensive discussions with Sun about the licensing
issue. Apparently both are wondering what the problem is and they
also think Derby is making too much of the licensing issue. (By the
way, I think the Sun party should not be holding these back-door
discussions with Geir M.)
In any case, Geir has said to his Sun party that he will be giving
a poke to the Derby-Dev.
Let's not be poked or poke back ...
I suggest just let it go.
I think this is a good idea, as long as the rest of the community
doesn't direct questions about licensing at us. Moving forward
with the release candidate according to Dan's plan will communicate
that we believe the licensing issue is dead. The onus will be on
Geir M. to put up or shut up.
-- Michelle
M.
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
--- End Message ---
