db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kathey Marsden <kmarsdende...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: derby standards
Date Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:58:42 GMT
Rick Hillegas wrote:

> I'm afraid I'm having a hard time figuring out Derby's relationship to
> what might be called standards. The following principles seem to be
> regularly advocated:
>
> 1) Derby should avoid inventing its own syntax and apis.
>
> 2) Instead, Derby should adopt syntax and apis endorsed by the
> following authorities:
>
>  - ANSI SQL 2003
>  - JDBC 4.0
>  - JSRs
>  - Other Apache projects
>
> From time to time, other authorities are recommended even though they
> conflict with principle (2):
>
> 3) Non-ANSI syntax used by popular databases like Oracle, DB2,
> Postgres, and MySQL.
>
> 4) Constraints imposed by DRDA.
>
> Principle (3) proves to be particularly nettlesome since the popular
> databases often disagree. As we expand Derby, I would like to
> understand how we reconcile these principles. Perhaps, first, we
> should state what Derby hopes to gain by compliance. The following
> benefits might apply:
>
> A) Familiar syntax and apis encourage developers to use Derby for new
> embedded applications.
>
> B) Compatible syntax and apis encourage migration of old applications
> to Derby from other databases.
>
> C) Compatible syntax and apis make it easy to scale up usage of a
> Derby-developed application by migrating it to an enterprise-calibre
> dbms.
>
I feel a bit like the Lorax speaking for the trees, but here goes....

In the case of existing syntax, I don't think we should remove or even
deprecate it in a lot of instances,  but it would be great to  introduce
a standard alternative.     I think it important to consider the
installed  user base and the advantage keeping the current syntax
working  provides.

D)   Users find their applications still work when they upgrade.


Kathey




Mime
View raw message