db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: "bug-check"
Date Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:54:16 GMT
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
>>>>     
>>>
>>>   
>>
>>
>>  
>>


Mime
View raw message