[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4259?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13564020#comment-13564020
 ] 

Dag H. Wanvik commented on DERBY-4259:
--------------------------------------

Sorry for chiming in late on this, but reading the description i was left with 
two questions:

"With is the value for not-so-newly-created data bases ? What is the value for 
*soft* upgraded databases? Obvious to us, I'm sure, but reading the description 
it seems as though not all cases are described... At a minimum it requires the 
reader to understand what hard upgrading means, so a link to its definition 
would be good. Since the description relates the property to the version of the 
jar it would be good to state explicitly that the DD inherits the version of 
the jar that either a) created the database or b) did the hard upgrade which 
will *upgrade* the dictionary format (and hence version).
                
> Document database property for determining database format version
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-4259
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4259
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Documentation
>    Affects Versions: 10.6.1.0
>            Reporter: Kathey Marsden
>            Assignee: Kim Haase
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 10.10.0.0
>
>         Attachments: DERBY-4259-2.diff, DERBY-4259-2.zip, DERBY-4259-3.diff, 
> DERBY-4259-3.zip, DERBY-4259.diff, DERBY-4259.stat, DERBY-4259.zip
>
>
> It would be useful  to have a public interface for determining the database 
> format when running in soft upgrade mode.  In the derby-user thread:
> http://www.nabble.com/Hard-upgrade-failing--td23826558.html#a23835534
> Evan pointed out he was using an undocumented property 
> 'DataDictionaryVersion' for this purpose, but this is not ideal because it 
> does not conform to the normal derby.* naming convention  and is not 
> documented.
> Discussion in DERBY-4255 determined that there are not currently 
> DatabaseMetaData methods that achieve the same result.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Reply via email to