> I think that if we can get a jca driver that functions as a
> standalone JDBC one with the additional of a few jar files, then
> that is fine. What i don't want to see is either two projects or a
> good jca with poor standalone support (which it seems isn't the way
> we are going - i hope:)

If somebody wishes, he may always pack the jca stuff into the same
jar as the jdbc driver is in (I hope that this does not penetrate any
licensing stuff). Then he will be happy with one jar with type 4 jdbc
driver :)

two projects, in my opinion, is not acceptable, because that will
require splitting the codebase, and it will not be later
maintainable. I agree with David Jencks, that jca is
important "killing feature" for the application server market.
Therefore, if our "standalone" driver works perfectly through JCA,
fine. If not, we have to make it work like this. If some features are
incompatible with JCA, then I would prefer the JCA.

just my $0.02 (btw, can anybody explain me where the two cents came
from?).

regards,
Roman