Details

    • Type: Sub-task Sub-task
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Minor Minor
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 2.0.0-M2
    • Fix Version/s: 2.0.0-M3
    • Component/s: docs
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      The list of supported databases is getting old. Need to update the supported/tested levels for Derby, DB2, Informix, MS SQL and Oracle.

      1. OPENJPA-1033-links_and_mssql.patch
        10 kB
        Donald Woods
      2. OPENJPA-1033-db_versions.patch
        6 kB
        Donald Woods

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          Donald Woods added a comment -

          Docs patch that updates the Supported Database matrix for Derby, DB2, Informix, MS SQL and Oracle based on currently tested platforms.
          The MS SQL section now includes the settings required when using the MS v1.2 or earlier JDBC driver, as the new 2.0 driver no longer requires these settings.

          Show
          Donald Woods added a comment - Docs patch that updates the Supported Database matrix for Derby, DB2, Informix, MS SQL and Oracle based on currently tested platforms. The MS SQL section now includes the settings required when using the MS v1.2 or earlier JDBC driver, as the new 2.0 driver no longer requires these settings.
          Hide
          Jeremy Bauer added a comment -

          I reviewed the patch and I have some questions/concerns before I commit the changes.

          • The patch updates the database version levels for several databases. Some versions, DB2 8.1 for example, may work fine with OpenJPA. Should that version be removed for the sake of currency? Would it be better to list a minimum level of support each database with the assumption (or explicit verbage) that newer versions claiming backward compatibility are also supported?
          • Has OpenJPA been fully tested with each of the versions specified? Does anyone know (or have an opinion of) what it means to be a supported version? Does it carry test implications or is it more a statement of what OpenJPA will be more apt to support if problems are found?

          I'm all for staying current, I just wanted to get these things out in the open and give time for others to comment before committing the patch.

          Regardless of the version updates, I think the other updates are good and the links to the support db sections is a nice feature.

          Show
          Jeremy Bauer added a comment - I reviewed the patch and I have some questions/concerns before I commit the changes. The patch updates the database version levels for several databases. Some versions, DB2 8.1 for example, may work fine with OpenJPA. Should that version be removed for the sake of currency? Would it be better to list a minimum level of support each database with the assumption (or explicit verbage) that newer versions claiming backward compatibility are also supported? Has OpenJPA been fully tested with each of the versions specified? Does anyone know (or have an opinion of) what it means to be a supported version? Does it carry test implications or is it more a statement of what OpenJPA will be more apt to support if problems are found? I'm all for staying current, I just wanted to get these things out in the open and give time for others to comment before committing the patch. Regardless of the version updates, I think the other updates are good and the links to the support db sections is a nice feature.
          Hide
          Donald Woods added a comment -

          DB2 v8.1 goes End of Support on April 30, 2009 - http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=71&context=SSEPGG&dc=D600&uid=swg21370360&loc=en_US&cs=UTF-8&lang=en&rss=ct71db2

          The other levels updated were either tested as part of the IBM WAS v7 release, which included OpenJPA 1.2.x -
          http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=180&uid=swg27012388
          or are currently being tested by other members of the JPA team.

          My thoughts were that we should update the levels now (and again before we release 2.0), given we're looking at least a 3Q09 release for 2.0 based on where the Spec process is....

          Show
          Donald Woods added a comment - DB2 v8.1 goes End of Support on April 30, 2009 - http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=71&context=SSEPGG&dc=D600&uid=swg21370360&loc=en_US&cs=UTF-8&lang=en&rss=ct71db2 The other levels updated were either tested as part of the IBM WAS v7 release, which included OpenJPA 1.2.x - http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=180&uid=swg27012388 or are currently being tested by other members of the JPA team. My thoughts were that we should update the levels now (and again before we release 2.0), given we're looking at least a 3Q09 release for 2.0 based on where the Spec process is....
          Hide
          Donald Woods added a comment -

          Reworked patch <OPENJPA-1033-links_and_mssql.patch> which only includes:
          1) updated MS SQL Server info as required by OPENJPA-1029
          2) added links in the DB Support table to each dbsupport_<db> section
          3) combined duplicate Postgresql sections into one, to match other DBs where we listed multiple versions in one row
          Updates to other DB versions will be attached in a separate patch.

          Show
          Donald Woods added a comment - Reworked patch < OPENJPA-1033 -links_and_mssql.patch> which only includes: 1) updated MS SQL Server info as required by OPENJPA-1029 2) added links in the DB Support table to each dbsupport_<db> section 3) combined duplicate Postgresql sections into one, to match other DBs where we listed multiple versions in one row Updates to other DB versions will be attached in a separate patch.
          Hide
          Jeremy Bauer added a comment -

          Donald - Thanks for breaking out the database version/driver support into a separate patch. That'll allow those updates to be addressed separately. I've committed OPENJPA-1033-links_and_mssql.patch dated 2009-04-17 07:45 AM under revision 766044.

          Show
          Jeremy Bauer added a comment - Donald - Thanks for breaking out the database version/driver support into a separate patch. That'll allow those updates to be addressed separately. I've committed OPENJPA-1033 -links_and_mssql.patch dated 2009-04-17 07:45 AM under revision 766044.
          Hide
          Donald Woods added a comment -

          Patch <OPENJPA-1033-db_versions.patch> that updates supported DB versions and should be applied after the "links_and_mssql" patch -
          1) Derby - drops 10.1 (does not support query or lock timeouts) and adds 10.3 and 10.4 (tested by Geronimo)
          2) DB2 - adds 9.1 and 9.5
          3) Informix - replaced 9.30 with 9.40 (extended support thru April 2009). Adds 10.00, 11.10, 11.50. Also adds support for using DB2 Universal driver on 11.10 and 11.50.
          4) MySQL - adds 5.1.31
          5) Oracle - drops 8.1 (extended support ended Dec. 2006). Adds 10.2 and 11.1.

          Show
          Donald Woods added a comment - Patch < OPENJPA-1033 -db_versions.patch> that updates supported DB versions and should be applied after the "links_and_mssql" patch - 1) Derby - drops 10.1 (does not support query or lock timeouts) and adds 10.3 and 10.4 (tested by Geronimo) 2) DB2 - adds 9.1 and 9.5 3) Informix - replaced 9.30 with 9.40 (extended support thru April 2009). Adds 10.00, 11.10, 11.50. Also adds support for using DB2 Universal driver on 11.10 and 11.50. 4) MySQL - adds 5.1.31 5) Oracle - drops 8.1 (extended support ended Dec. 2006). Adds 10.2 and 11.1.
          Show
          Donald Woods added a comment - Link to Informix 9.30 vs 9.40 end of support details - http://www-111.ibm.com/software/support/lifecycle/PLCDetail.wss?psynkey=P841938Q29735V05&synkey=S447518T02366Y14&synkey=Q196770A44505L07&synkey=J074916A15745Q65&synkey=H349392G99327B57&synkey=A769100S92889P83&from=spf
          Hide
          Milosz Tylenda added a comment -

          Donald & Jeremy, good idea to address this. My opinion:

          • I would list a minimum level of support for each database with the explicit verbage that newer versions claiming backward compatibility are also supported (or just: verbage that newer versions are also supported). This should be clear for users and will save us some work as databases are updated quite frequently.
          • I would define a supported version/database as a statement of what OpenJPA will be more apt to support if problems are found. I assume we are not able to run tests regularly on every minor (or even major) database version. Also, I believe Derby being the only one which passes every (nearly) test case.
          • I would bump up the minimum PostgreSQL version to 7.4 as previous versions seem not to be updated by PostgreSQL programmers for a long time.
          • I believe the previous version of the patch was correcting the order of sections. It might have been another good idea but probaly now needs a new patch because of the recent updates for Firebird.
          Show
          Milosz Tylenda added a comment - Donald & Jeremy, good idea to address this. My opinion: I would list a minimum level of support for each database with the explicit verbage that newer versions claiming backward compatibility are also supported (or just: verbage that newer versions are also supported). This should be clear for users and will save us some work as databases are updated quite frequently. I would define a supported version/database as a statement of what OpenJPA will be more apt to support if problems are found. I assume we are not able to run tests regularly on every minor (or even major) database version. Also, I believe Derby being the only one which passes every (nearly) test case. I would bump up the minimum PostgreSQL version to 7.4 as previous versions seem not to be updated by PostgreSQL programmers for a long time. I believe the previous version of the patch was correcting the order of sections. It might have been another good idea but probaly now needs a new patch because of the recent updates for Firebird.
          Hide
          Donald Woods added a comment -

          Split into Verified vs. Compatible databases/drivers

          Show
          Donald Woods added a comment - Split into Verified vs. Compatible databases/drivers

            People

            • Assignee:
              Donald Woods
              Reporter:
              Donald Woods
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                Development