db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Army <qoz...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-334) Add initial SQL support for XML datatype/functions in Derby, based on SQL/XML specs.
Date Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:02:03 GMT
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

> In some ways Cloudscape split too much into api and implementation and
> the types package was attempt to fix that, there used to be an impl
> types. Looking at it, Derby will only ever need one implementation for
> INTEGER so that's why the types moved to a single package. In only rare
> cases, DECIMAL, maybe XML does Derby need separate implementations.

Okay, I can move impl.sql.xml.* back to the iapi.types.  But will that resolve 
the issue you mentioned about spilling over into the SQL layer?  Even if I redo 
the packaging, the XML implementation file will still make the call to the 
DataDictionary class in org.apache.derby.iapi.sql.dictionary, so isn't that 
cross-over still going to be there?  Does that part of the code need to change?

> There is a theory of "You ain't going to need it", which really says
> only code what you need. If we only need a single XML implementation at
> the moment then code it that way, just allow the on-disk format to have
> multiple implementations in the future. The api is XMLDataValue and the
> implementation XML. Just an idea, again I think in Cloudscape we built
> too much infrastructure for multiple implementations, where in many
> cases one will suffice.

I can certainly code it for a single XML implementation, but seeing as, in this 
particular case, we _expect_ that multiple implementations are going to exist 
for XML, it seems much cleaner (to me) to code up the structure now.  When the 
SQLInteger type was created, what were the odds that it was going to require 
multiple implementations?  Probably not as high as for XML--not only are we 
acknowledging that another (better) XML implementation could come up in the 
future, but we're _hoping_ for one.  To put the structure in place now means 
that future contributors can focus on adding the new implementation and not on 
re-organizing the old one(s).  And the easier it is to add a new, smarter 
implementation, the more likely we are to have someone volunteer to do it :)

But that's my proverbial two cents.  I can certainly re-org the code to just 
have an XMLDataValue interface and a single XML implementation, if that's the 
desired solution.

SO, I guess I'll post the revised patch that I have (all tests passed from last 
night's run) for people to review, and then I'll start working on a third 
version of the patch that 1) moves impl.sql.xml back to types.iapi, and 2) is 
simplified to just worry about a single XML (UTF-8 based) implementation.

Thanks much for the feedback!

Army


Mime
View raw message