db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dyre.Tjeldv...@Sun.COM
Subject Re: VOTE: Approach for sharing code
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:38:24 GMT
Knut Anders Hatlen <Knut.Hatlen@Sun.COM> writes:

> David, I think this is a very good proposal! Much better than the
> class-version scheme proposed earlier in my opinion. Read my comments
> to your questions below.
> "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM> writes:
>> I thought Kathey/Dan's idea of generating copies of the common code
>> into two separate directories was interesting and solved a lot of problems,
>> and I thought it would be worthwhile to walk through this in a bit more
>> detail.
>> I took a look at all the relevant use cases I could think of and describe
>> the steps involved and what the user experience will be like.  Through
>> this effort I did find a couple of possible issues that may make us want
>> to think twice about this approach.  Perhaps others can think of ways around
>> these issues.  I have labelled issues uncovered with the tag <ISSUE> in
>> the text below, rather than try and summarize them here.
> [snip]
>> <ISSUE>
>> QUESTION: is there a need for mixed versions between the tools and
>> engine code?  If so we will need to generate a third package hierarchy
>> org.apache.derby.tools.common.*.
>> </ISSUE>
> Don't know, but when one first has a framework for common code this
> should be relatively easy, don't you think? One more issue will arise
> if the shared code is copied into three or more locations: What if
> only two of the components use a file? Should that file only be copied
> to those two components or to all the components? (Probably not a big
> issue. I don't care if a jar gets a couple of KB bigger, but maybe
> someone does.)
You realize, of course, that what you guys are proposing is a "home-grown"
version of what REAL programming languages call *templates*,
don't you...? :-D (Sorry, I could not help it)


View raw message