On 9/27/2011 7:26 AM, Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
Another question is whether mixed versions is a configuration we need
to support (I don't think it's stated explicitly anywhere that we
actually do support it?).
Years ago, I know this support was very important to several of our
large consumers, but perhaps needs have changed. I am sure those that
expressed the need for this to keep working are not up to 10.7 yet. I
had thought CompatibiltyTest was doing the basic testing for mixed
jars. I guess though, that test is just for basic protocol testing and
must use separate class loaders or the basic testing would have
failed. Certainly, I think I could personally, better justify asking
the users that asked for mixed jars to workaround the issue with a
separate class loader than to ask all our consumers to change their
documentation and support procedures with multiple sysinfo commands. I
will check with some consumers and report back.
I do think the suites.All mixed version protocol testing is important
as it usually finds issues, but I am sure we can fix JVMInfo for the
current issue and find a way to run these tests moving forward. I
think there is already an issue open for an option to run them with
client in a separate class loader.
Anyway, I think a good short term solution is to get JVMInfo out of
sysinfo to get things running again (DERBY-1046), release 10.8.2 and
then do some more extensive research on the need for mixed classes.
As an aside, did we have a recent report of a sealing violation because
of shared classes? I thought we did but I can't seem to find it now.
Thanks
Kathey
