db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "TomohitoNakayama" <tomon...@basil.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-496) unit test 'org.apache.derbyTesting.unitTests.services.T_Diagnosticable' was failed
Date Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:54:53 GMT
Hello.

Daniel John Debrunner wrote :
> Not sure I agree with this change. Adding code into the product
> (derby.jar) *only* in order to make a unit test pass seems a generally
> incorrect approach.
>
> I think that maybe the Diagnosticable interface should be removed. I
> think the functionality it is trying to provide is really the domain of
> a Java debugger. The classes & mechanism were there to provide access to
> non-public fields of classes for debugging, but its approach requires
> security compromises to be made, by making such private or non-public
> fields accessible.


I thought that diag package should be in derby.jar as framework for user of derby,
because of reading next description found at javadoc of org.apache.derby.iapi.services.diag.DiagnosticUtil

http://db.apache.org/derby/javadoc/engine/org/apache/derby/iapi/services/diag/DiagnosticUtil.html
:
The Diagnostic framework is meant to provide a way to include as much diagnostic capability
within the distributed release of the 
cloudscape product without adversely affecting the runtime speed or foot print of a running
configuration that needs not use this 
information.


Are you proposing changing how we place this diag package (furthermore Diagnostic framework
) in whole derby ?
It may be better , because it will reduce size of derby.jar , and make derby more secure as
you said.

//However, I think it is better to have voting  , if doing it .....


Best regards.


/*

         Tomohito Nakayama
         tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
         tomohito@rose.zero.ad.jp
         tmnk@apache.org

         Naka
         http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html

*/
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel John Debrunner" <djd@debrunners.com>
To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-496) unit test 'org.apache.derbyTesting.unitTests.services.T_Diagnosticable'
was failed


> Tomohito Nakayama (JIRA) wrote:
>>     [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-496?page=comments#action_12320680
]
>>
>> Tomohito Nakayama commented on DERBY-496:
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> Description of DERBY-496_2_addition.patch:
>>
>> Modification:
>> * Adding DiagnosticUtil explicitly to derby.jar by modifying extraDBMSclasses.properties
>>
>> Testing:
>> * unit/T_Diagnosticable passed.
>
> Not sure I agree with this change. Adding code into the product
> (derby.jar) *only* in order to make a unit test pass seems a generally
> incorrect approach.
>
> I think that maybe the Diagnosticable interface should be removed. I
> think the functionality it is trying to provide is really the domain of
> a Java debugger. The classes & mechanism were there to provide access to
> non-public fields of classes for debugging, but its approach requires
> security compromises to be made, by making such private or non-public
> fields accessible.
>
> Dan.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date: 2005/08/30
>
> 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date: 2005/08/30


Mime
View raw message