Knut Anders Hatlen wrote: > What I meant was that existing applications written against Derby will > already have been coded so that they explicitly commit or abort the > transaction before they close the connection. This means they are not > likely to be affected by a change in how we handle closing of active > transactions.
Rick Hillegas <[email protected]> writes: > I remain concerned about backward compatibility and would object to > option (3). If Knut's analysis holds (I think it does), how do you see backward compatibility being a problem, Rick? It seems to me this could potentially trip up developers used to the old Derby behavior, but not apps developed against Derby with the existing behavior. I'd say that is an accentable price to pay in this case, given proper release note heads up. Dag
