Rick Hillegas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks to Andrew, Craig, and David for your responses.
> i) We would generate the JDBC3 api using the 1.4 javadoc tool. The > missing subclass references shouldn't confuse customers because the > subclasses wouldn't appear in the JDBC3 api. > > ii) We would generate the JDBC4 api using the 1.6 javadoc tool. This > api would not contain the lying classes from the JDBC3 api. > > iii) We would bolt a webpage on top of the top apis, explaining which > api to consult, based on the client VM. > > Does this sound acceptable? +1 Dag
