Hi,
Jim I respectfully partially disagree. JDBC 1 assumes no connection
pooling, no 2pc, etc etc. JDBC 2 and 3 and JCA allow for the possibility
of XA transaction management. I say if we want to end up with an XA
capable driver we need to put it in from the start, otherwise it would be
just like upgrading interserver to support XA. ( My guess is that
Interserver was mostly designed to hide 2pc possibilities of Interbase...
more top quality engineering).

david jencks

On 2001.04.24 12:54:42 -0400 Jim Starkey wrote:
> At 04:03 PM 4/24/01 +0100, Ian Newby wrote:
> >
> > What version of JDBC should we target? 3.0 is in final draft now. Does
> anyone
> > lower level first to
> > I've downloaded the 3.0 API and it
> > looks nice and complex! I thought JDBC was supposed to be a simple,
> clean
> > method for accessing databases!
> >
>
> Since there are proper supersets, there really isn't a question.
> We first do 1.0. Then we do 2.0. Then, if we care, we do 3.0.
> It probably does make sense to make the classes implement the
> 3.0 interfaces even if all the new stuff dead ends with
> "throw new SQLException ("not yet implemented")".
>
> Jim Starkey
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> IB-Java-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>