db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kathy Saunders <ka...@Source-Zone.com>
Subject Re: SQL/DDL Limitations (and DB2)
Date Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:31:44 GMT
In my opinion Derby should make decisions based on what is the best 
thing for the Derby project, not just how it works with DB2.  The 
proposal for submitting Derby to Apache at 
http://incubator.apache.org/derby/derby_proposal.html talks about 
promoting a standards-based, database-agnostic approach to application 
development.  I believe that we should be sure changes we make adhere to 
standards.  So, I believe that you should go ahead and submit the 
"patch".  As it changes functionality, I see it more of an enhancement 
which may require a vote, but I'm still learning about the process.

Having said that, you should note that the decision was made to make 
Cloudscape DB2 compatible prior to IBM's decision to contribute the code 
to Apache.  Much of this work was done before the Apache decision was 
made.  There may be places where reasonable adjustments can be made 
within standards guidelines, assuming the Derby community agrees.  I 
personally believe that we should maintain general compatibility with 
enterprise databases, including Oracle, Sybase, Informix, DB2 etc,. 
where possible.  The standards position should help.  I agree with Jason 
that transition flags would be a painful way to go.


Jason Rimmer wrote:

>     While a reasonable suggestion on its face adoption puts Derby on a 
> slippery slope.  Why favor DB2?  Why not add transition flags for any 
> 'enterprise-class' database such as PostgreSQL, Oracle, Sybase, 
> Informix, and what the heck SQL Server, MySQL, and Firebird as well? 
> The tracking of versions and capabilities alone introduces maintenance 
> issues of the most enjoyable variety.
>     No, Derby should be its own database.  Better yet, if the 
> developer base so determines Derby could be an 'enterprise-class' 
> database rivaling any previously listed.  I don't see where political 
> sensitivity even enters the equation.  While I certainly appreciate 
> and am grateful for IBM's contribution of Derby's original source, in 
> order for the project to flourish it will have to determine a destiny 
> of its own. (Though I understand that such a determination could lead 
> to the maintenance of these DB2 compatibility flags).
>     If you love it, set it free.
> Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
>> I am just guessing that IBM would be less than overjoyed if Derby 
>> lost its ability to be an easy migration path to DB2. Would it not be 
>> fairly reasonable, however, to fulfil both requirements. At database 
>> creation time a flag could be set to dictate DB2 mode or extended 
>> mode. The database could then set an immutable database level 
>> property and behave accordingly. True this would introduce some 
>> complexity into the system, but it would be politically sensitive 
>> while still achieving better functionality.
>> - joel

View raw message