Re: What releases should the jdbc driver support? Was:

I agree
On Fri, 2002-09-13 at 05:54, Panu Outinen wrote:
> At 09:51 12.9.2002 -0700, Barry Lind wrote:
> >We have been trying to remain backwardly compatible back to 7.0. But as
> >you point out some non-backwardly compatible things have been added. It
> >is possible to use outer-joins for 7.1 and greater and not use them for
> >7.0 (i.e. if (connection.haveMinimumServerVersion("7.1")) { do join
> >stuff } else { do existing logic } ). But before doing that does anyone
> >have an opinion on how far back the driver should support server versions?
> >
> >I would suggest we have a policy of supporting the current and two
> >previous versions. Since the current production version is 7.2 that
> >means supporting 7.0 and 7.1 in the 7.2 driver, and supporting 7.1 and
> >7.2 in the 7.3 driver.
>
> My vote goes for this policy. Otherwise the driver gets bloated with code.
> And what about the testing phase, people would need to have several
> different database versions available for themselves in order to do full
> testing. Usually the best tester is the coder himself :-)
>
> >The problem with this is that we generally don't
> >backport fixes to previous releases, so if someone found a bug in the
> >7.2 driver and was running on a 7.0 database they wouldn't be able to
> >easily get a fix since we would fix it in the 7.3 version which wouldn't
> >support 7.0. If we decide on a policy I think it is then a good idea to
> >have the driver error when connecting to a database version that isn't
> >supported.
>
> How about just giving a warning like "Too old database version, not all
> features supported". If basic functionality is still supported (SELECT,
> INSERT, DELETE, UPDATE) it's still useful.
>
> This reminds me of the current production version of Microsoft's JDBC
> driver for SQL Server 2000. They added the version check into the driver
> just before the released version (it was nearly fully functional and still
> would be with SQL Server 7.0). Of course they have other reasons to do this.
>
> - Panu
>
>
> >thanks,
> >--Barry
> >
> >
> >Panu Outinen wrote:
> > > At 10:00 12.9.2002 -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > >
> > >> Panu,
> > >>
> > >> The getIndexInfo uses an outer join which won't be backward compatible?
> > >> I did apply the getTables patch and will commit soon, can you modify the
> > >> getIndexInfo part?
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, both getTables() and getIndexInfo() part of my patch need the
> > > 'outer join' functionality. And e.g. getColumns() uses 'outer join'
> > > always in current code!
> > >
> > > So how far backward compatible does it need to be nowadays ? I mean 7.3
> > > version of Postgresql is already coming, isn't 7.1.x enough ?
> > >
> > > - Panu
> > >
> ...
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
--

Felipe Schnack
Analista de Sistemas
felipes(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br
Cel.: (51)91287530
Linux Counter #281893

Faculdade Ritter dos Reis
www.ritterdosreis.br
felipes(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br
Fone/Fax.: (51)32303328