Subject | Re: [Firebird-Java] JayBird - is a version update scehdule? |
---|---|
Author | Roman Rokytskyy |
Post date | 2005-03-30T18:57:48Z |
Ron,
- full support for Services API (backup/restore, user management, etc);
- support for updatable result sets
- execution plan in statements
- no caching in auto-commit mode
- reworked JCA code
First three issues are solved, last is almost solved (reconnecting an
in-limbo transaction for recovery is the only problem there), I am currently
doing big refactoring of the transaction management to fix caching in
auto-commit mode. Current state of the driver is not acceptable even for
alpha release, it's in the middle of refactoring. I think I need one month
to finish this task, and if there will be no pending changes from Gabriel
Reid and Steven Jardine, then we can start with the release cycle.
will check how hard would it be to backport fixes from HEAD to Branch_1_5.
If that is not too complex, I will do this.
Can you please provide a list of bugfixes to port (the best would a list of
ChangeLog entries, file is available from CVS)?
Roman
> What is the schedule for the next release of the JayBird driver?Next release will be 2.0 and will include many new features:
- full support for Services API (backup/restore, user management, etc);
- support for updatable result sets
- execution plan in statements
- no caching in auto-commit mode
- reworked JCA code
First three issues are solved, last is almost solved (reconnecting an
in-limbo transaction for recovery is the only problem there), I am currently
doing big refactoring of the transaction management to fix caching in
auto-commit mode. Current state of the driver is not acceptable even for
alpha release, it's in the middle of refactoring. I think I need one month
to finish this task, and if there will be no pending changes from Gabriel
Reid and Steven Jardine, then we can start with the release cycle.
> The latest version is still 1.5.5, correct?Correct.
> Since December there have been multiple enchancments and bugs fixed (?) -I do not plan to release 1.5.6 version, but if there is demand for it - I
> I am particularly interested in bugs related to memory leaks, etc.
will check how hard would it be to backport fixes from HEAD to Branch_1_5.
If that is not too complex, I will do this.
Can you please provide a list of bugfixes to port (the best would a list of
ChangeLog entries, file is available from CVS)?
Roman