> My own problem is that I am paranoid ;-) I just have this
> impression that those of us like myself, Leo and Blas (hope I have
> understood them both correctly) who need JDBC but not JCA are seen
> as people needing to be converted to JCA.

No, they just need to include some more classes in classpath. We do
not have CCI (part of JCA) support simply because it conflicts with
JDBC.

> For me full standard JDBC support is about 2 billion times more
> exciting, important and interesting than any/all JCA support. In my
> paranoia I keep thinking you are saying that the jdbc driver is
> compromised due to the JCA support. Maybe that is not what you are
> meaning.

Currently I see only one thing that might be improved (however I have
no idea how): autocommit support. Current implementation caches
result set in memory to model autocommit semantics. If somebody has
better idea how to use IB API, please post it here.

> I like the idea of multiple packages if it makes the code easier to
> approach. I have not had time to do much but when I did look I am
> afraid that I got lost quite quickly.

I do not object repackaging. But I would first go for release (we're
quite close to it), then tag it as stable version, branch new version
and make repackaging/refactoring there (like FB people do with
database code).

> Hoping you understand my paranoia and therefore why messages like
> the ones from Blas seem very important and significant to people
> coming from this point of view.

Only in discussion we can make driver better. You input is really
appreciated, and is very good motivation to continue development! We
see that our work is needed by others, not just to please our ego.

Thanks!

Roman Rokytskyy