Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
Message-ID: <416537A0.6010500@debrunners.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 05:33:36 -0700
From: Daniel John Debrunner <djd@debrunners.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derby Development <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: multiple systems in same VM?
References: 
 <7CD50CE878D92841A224D410B2B2DF0B1C8EC2@049SBEVS1.me.corp.ids-scheer.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <7CD50CE878D92841A224D410B2B2DF0B1C8EC2@049SBEVS1.me.corp.ids-scheer.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Khin, Gerald wrote:

> The only resort I come up with is that a well behaving library, that
> wants to use embedded Derby, must not try to hide its usage, or has to
> do some classloader things. I think, the most convenient solution from
> the Derby using developers point of view would be if Derby would provide
> a concept that extends its current system concept to support multiple
> systems.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by multiple systems. Can you
give examples of the benefits of this? E.g. if app1 is using db1 and
app2 is using db2 then what would be gained with two Derby systems over
the single one that is supported today?

Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBZTegIv0S4qsbfuQRAs4RAJ9oVX2InVPVcf6pVpeKKBDR/nl13gCg4FAI
vZrlGGudel3M8IWa1D/JpgY=
=LK5m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----