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: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4224A57E.8020801@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:25:18 -0800
From: Jack Klebanoff <klebanoff-derby@sbcglobal.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derby Development <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Overly conservative on reserved words?
References: <4222030C.3010600@apache.org> <42237891.4020407@debrunners.com>
 <422385C9.3090507@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <422385C9.3090507@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jeremy Boynes wrote:

> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
>> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Reserving additional words from the second group poses a bigger 
>>> issue as
>>> users' may have databases out there already using these words as
>>> identifiers. The smoothest path is probably to give people an 
>>> indication
>>> of which words will need to be reserved at some point and hence should
>>> be avoided; it is better for us to do this earlier than later.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually having even keywords defined as reserved by the SQL Standard
>> reserved in Derby has caused problems. I recently changed LOCAL not to
>> be a reserved word as other databases do not enforce it. We probably
>> need some set rules, but reserving because the SQL standard says so it
>> not the approach taken by other products.
>>
>
> 'The nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from' :-)
> Especially true with 4 versions of ISO SQL and N vendor-specific 
> dialects. One of the issues users face is that the spec evolves and 
> products implement newer versions, words that were not reserved before 
> now need to be.
>
> Ideally we would not need to reserve anything, giving users complete 
> freedom on how they name their things; however, that would make the 
> parser, lets say, challenging. Short of this ideal, I think we should 
> compormise and only reserve words needed to resolve ambiguity in the 
> parser; that lets users decide how much portability they need. To help 
> them do that I think it's useful for us to indicate direction and what 
> is likely to be reserved (SAVEPOINT) vs. what isn't (PERCENTILE_DISC).
>
> Is it worth raising a warning on DDL operations that define objects 
> that conflict with SQL's reservation list?
>
> -- 
> Jeremy
>
I am uneasy about offering extensions to the SQL standard. Every 
extension is a "minnow trap" making it difficult for developers to port 
applications from Derby to other relational databases. Many, perhaps 
most, developers are not that vigilant about all the fine points of 
standards and portability. Often they do not consciously decide how much 
portability they need, but use whatever gets their application going and 
find out later whether it is portable.

We have to decide what Derby's goals are. Currently part of our charter 
says "developers can later migrate to other databases if they so 
choose". As long as this remains an important part of Derby's charter we 
should try to keep Derby a subset of the latest SQL standard, and we 
should avoid features that are incompatible with leading enterprise 
relational database management systems.

(A real minnow trap is a device used to catch minnows, small bait fish. 
The trap is a cylindrical cage with funnel like openings at either end. 
You put some food in the cage. Minnows find it easy to swim in but hard 
to swim out).

Jack