If we do revisit the common code problem, I'd like to throw something
else onto the pile of common code: the DRDA constants. Methinks the
network client and server should share these constants rather than clone
them.
Cheers,
-Rick
David Van Couvering wrote:
> Thaks, Satheesh. Moving the engine assert mechanism over would
> involve either more cutting and pasting or revisiting the "common jar
> file problem". Personally, if we do any assert support in the client,
> I would like to just use JDK 1.4 assertions (and have it be a no-op
> for JDK 1.3 builds).
>
> At any rate, to keep things contained, I am going to just continue
> using these error messages as written now, and we can address the
> issue around using asserts in the client as a separate JIRA item.
>
> David
>
> Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
>
>> I think some of them were inserted during development to support some
>> kind of assertions. We could change them now as appropriate. Should we
>> consider using engine's ASSERT() mechanism in the client too?
>>
>> Satheesh
>>
>> David Van Couvering wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I meant "suffix" not "suffice"
>>>
>>> David Van Couvering wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi, all. I am noticing that messages for exceptions thrown in
>>>> org.apache.derby.jdbc.ClientBaseDataSource often have the suffice
>>>> "bug check: ", for example "bug check: corresponding property field
>>>> does not exist".
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any history on this and why this is there? Is this
>>>> correct, or should I be fixing something as I extract these messages
>>>> into a properties file?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
|