Kathey Marsden wrote: > David Van Couvering wrote: >> OK, I got one answer from Bryan (yes for client/server, no for >> embedded, which makes sense) and one from Kathy (no backward >> compatibility period). >> >> Just want to check -- is client/server backward compatible or not? >> > Sorry David, Bryan is right. If you start your server with 10.3, you > can connect with a 10.2 client, although our testing in this area is > fairly thin. > > Kathey > >
It is rather thin, but we do some testing in this area: The tests reported in e.g. http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/tinderbox_trunk16/jvm1.6/testing/Limited/index.html , http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/trunk15/jvm1.5/testing/Limited/index.html , http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/trunk16/jvmAll/testing/Limited/index.html and http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/Daily/jvm1.6/testing/Limited/ includes the 'compatibility' / '.tests.junitTests.compatibility.CompatibilityCombinations' test which runs the '.../junitTests.compatibility.JDBCDriverTest' on all combinations of servers and clients (and a set of jvms). This reports e.g. ServerVM-j16lib_server10.3.1.4_vs_ClientVM-j16lib_client10.2.2.0: Time: 0.233 OK (2 tests) which means client10.2.2.0 was used to connect to a database created with server10.3.1.4. Today I also did a run of this test *without re-creating* the database when switching to newer servers, i.e. a soft upgrade is done when connecting to the database. This was also OK: ServerVM-j16lib_server10.3.1.4_vs_ClientVM-j16lib_client10.2.2.0: Time: 0.223 OK (2 tests). Some more info on the '.tests.junitTests.compatibility.CompatibilityCombinations' test can be found in DERBY-2316. (This thread also made me aware I hadn't updated my environment for 10.3.1.4 in this test. Should be OK from tonight.) -- Ole Solberg, Database Technology Group, Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway
