Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 69923 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2004 11:34:48 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Sep 2004 11:34:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 92876 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2004 11:34:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 92722 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2004 11:34:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Derby Development" Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 92706 invoked by uid 99); 19 Sep 2004 11:34:46 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [193.113.154.43] (HELO dswu232.btconnect.com) (193.113.154.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 04:34:45 -0700 Received: from athena.etish.org (actually host 197.189.34.217.in-addr.arpa) by dswu232 with SMTP-CUST (XT-PP) with ESMTP; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:34:36 +0100 From: Joel Rosi-Schwartz Organization: Etish Limited To: "Derby Development" Subject: Re: SQL/DDL Limitations (and DB2) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:33:31 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <8D5A122E-09AB-11D9-8965-000A95782782@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <8D5A122E-09AB-11D9-8965-000A95782782@apache.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200409191233.31925.Joel.Rosi-Schwartz@Etish.org> X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 On Saturday 18 September 2004 20:47, Brian McCallister wrote: > There are a few artificial constraints (1) imposed on Derby, possibly > in the interest of making the DDL/SQL/etc exactly compatible with DB2 > compared to prior versions of Cloudscape. In at least some cases (2) > these constraints are different from the SQL spec, and older versions > of Cloudscape (3) > > While I understand that the IBM developers may not be in a position to > undo these changes, is there any *technical* reason to limit Derby in > this way? If not, will patches submitted to undo these limitations be > accepted? > > -Brian > > (1) > http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/cloudscape/pubs/cloudscape10- > migrate.html#Header_15 > (2) > http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=derby- > dev@db.apache.org&msgNo=411 > (3) > http://cermics.enpc.fr/~rl/cloudscape/doc/html/coredocs/ > sqlj3.htm#1013025