> Jack Klebanoff wrote:
>
> I wanted to make an initial implementation that is simple, handles both
> INTERSECT and EXCEPT, and that fits into the current Derby
> implementation fairly easily. If the performance of INTERSECT or EXCEPT
> proves to be important then we should revisit this.
>

I certainly agree with this approach. The first priority is to get something
that works
as easily and simply as possible. I am still struggling to get up to speed
with Derby's
internals so am still not as familiar as I need to be with how things work
now and
why they were implemented that way.

Repeating the offer I made in Derby-13 (which received no replies as yet):

I would be happy to work one on one (or in a group) with any of the
developers to begin to document the existing architecture and the design
decisions that went into it. This could be by telephone, email or in person
(I am in the San Francisco Bay area and would be happy to meet with folks on
this).


The suggestions Jack has made in this thread and the alternatives he is
considering
are exactly the type of information that I would like to capture without
getting in the
way of getting the work done.

As I have previously suggested to Dan, we need to pick the gold mine of
these folks minds before
the motherlode vein of information is tapped out. The process isn't all that
painful
and usually doesn't cause any permanent damage.