Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think adding another jar will improve usability. I think the > restriction of a dedicated export directory or restrictions on > directory names for export will also not improve usability. I think > it is reasonable to expect the user to delete pre-existing files > before exporting over them. But this is all just a straight > difference of opinion.
Just want to state that my comment to this issue would not cause me to vote -1 for the issue or the release :) But looking at how DERBY-2436 is also open (misuse of IMPORT to read aunauthorized data); I guess i feel that some more general way of limiting *which* files are read/written by export/import is the way to go, even if it risks causing some incompatibility. Thanks, Dag
