cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <>
Subject Re: Using different DB drivers for RMTxStore?
Date Thu, 26 May 2011 16:18:43 GMT

I would lean toward #2 at this point.   Out of the box, I'd like to see it 
working with as many DB's as possible and using the wider supported types 
makes sense for that.    Longer term, a combo of #1 and #3 makes sense with 
possible a couple variations of RMTxStore with different DB table schemas 
provided to make it easier to setup.


On Thursday, May 26, 2011 9:12:28 AM Aki Yoshida wrote:
> Hi,
> My question is about whether we have a statement about which DB
> drivers are supported by RMTxStore.
> I saw CXF-3534 that complains the 2.4.0 version of RMTxStore no longer
> works for the Oracle driver because of the change in one of the SQL
> types used in the table definition.
> The previous version seems to have worked fine with the Oracle driver.
> In fact, it was probably once intended to also work with the Oracle
> driver because there is a method catching explicitly one of the Oracle
> specific driver exceptions.
> How should we do with this ticket? I can think of several options.
> 1. Do nothing and say that anyone using a driver other than derby
> should write their own RMTxStore implementation.
> 2. Change the SQL type of those affected fields from BIGINT to
> DECIMAL(19,0) so that we can support both derby and oracle (and
> possibly a few more) using the current RMTxStore code.
> 3. Provide a set of DB table schema versions specifically for the
> drivers so that several other DB drivers can be additionally supported
> (e.g. MSSQL).
> My feeling is tending towards 1 or 2 for now. In the future, we could
> consider supporting some other drivers out of the box if there is
> enough demand.
> Your feedback is appreciated.
> Thanks.
> Regards, aki

Daniel Kulp
Talend -

View raw message