on 6/1/01 12:25 PM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been doing this for some time, and I have seen lots of projects give
> "reasons" why they needed to break backwards compatibility, but just this
> one time - honest. I'm confident that the people developing JDBC 3.0 feel
> the same way, particularly as it appears that it will have a new major
> version number.
>
> - Sam Ruby
I wasn't just picking on JDBC, I was really picking on the rest of the bugs.
Especially things like breaking reflection.
Also, it sounds like they just decided to break compatibility without having
deprecated it first for at least one version. So, even though it is a major
new revision, at least one previous 2.x revision probably should have had it
deprecated first.
-jon
--
"Open source is not available to commercial companies."
-Steve Balmer, CEO Microsoft
<http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
