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 Proposal about creating shared component (Re: Questions about what is module to be shared (Re: Discussions on Wik ... ))
Date Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:28:09 GMT
Hello.


I have suspect on next two items.

* '''DRDA networking''' -- providing shared code     <snip>   message semantics, datatypes,
etc.
    Because of synmetry between server and client, some part of networking protocol component
would be similar implementation 
between server and client .
    However, I think it can be somekind of trap because there would exists difference of processing
between server and client .

* '''Security''' -- provides pluggable security infrastructure that  is common across client
and server
    I'm not sure required security is same between server and client.

Well, all they are just suspect , and not anymore than suspect now .
I can't assert that they are evil, unless they are explained more concretely.
// To say the trugh, I feel some kind of beauty in sharing code in DRDA because of synmetry
between server and client , even !


Writing this mail, I noticed that what my concern is the impact and danger of shared component
.
I think shared code can become trap very easily,
because shared component can share , not only something which should be shared , but also
something which should not be shared , 
between programs.
I feel danger about such a bunch of code being created with silence.

Then, I propose next :
    It is subject of voting to create new shared component .  New shared component require
passing the vote .


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: "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM>
To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: Questions about what is module to be shared (Re: Discussions on Wik ... )


> If I understand correctly, your concerns Tomohito is that you don't know
> whether the versioning guidelines apply until you know better what it is
> we are trying to share.  I added my comments to the Wiki page on this,
> and am including it in this email for ongoing discussion:
>
> ====
>
> Let me try to give a sense of what the actual '''components''' would be,
> not just the kinds of things that could be shared.  Again, these are all
> possibilities, not realities, and
>
>    * '''Common services''' -- these are basic level services that can
> be used across multiple subsystems. This includes things like
> internationalization, common error messages and SQL states,
> !SanityManager, logging/tracing, version info, and other miscellaneous
> shareable services.  It is more than possible that functionality which
> starts in this component could end up evolving to be its own separate
> component, but that does not need to be determined ahead of time.
>    * '''DRDA networking''' -- providing shared code that is used to
> implement the DRDA protocol.  Having this in a shared location helps to
> ensure that the client and server code are in sync in terms of message
> types, message semantics, datatypes, etc.
>    * '''Security''' -- provides pluggable security infrastructure that
> is common across client and server
>    * '''Common JDBC functionality''' -- this is highly debatable, but
> it could be there is code between the client and embedded drivers that
> is shareable.  Again, just a thought, not a commitment.
>
> In terms of how each of these components manages their sharing, I really
> do think this is something that can be defined later.  What we want to
> establish are the ground rules for how a shared component is versioned,
> distributed, and what compatibility rules we need to follow.  At this
> point we are making no claims to the underlying architecture and
> structure of specific shared components, and I do not feel this needs to
> be identified at this time.   For example, we may decide we want a
> common way to load an implementation of an interface at runtime; that is
> a separate discussion and does not need to be defined prior to getting
> in the basic infrastructure as defined in
> SharedComponentVersioningGuidelines.
>
> TomohitoNakayama wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> I post my questions around shared module.
>>
>> What is the modules to be shread ?
>>
>> David shows me the list of modules to be shared in next url.
>> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ListOfSharedComponent
>>
>> However, David justs lists them (At least I recognized as so) and,
>> I think we need to think about this list in order to make it clear what
>> is the module to be shared .
>>
>> At first, I think we should think next :
>> * Definition of each element in the lists.
>>
>> And I think what we need to be careful about is as next :
>> * Is granularity of this list reasonable as shared module ?
>> * Are there any other elements which should be included in this lists ?
>> * Is it possible to share the element as the shared module ?
>>
>> 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: "David W. Van Couvering"
>> <David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM>
>> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 5:44 AM
>> Subject: Re: Discussions on Wiki - WAS Re: SQL functions, procedures and
>> PSM - a possible approach
>>
>>
>>> Hi, Tomohito.  It would be great if you could summarize your concerns
>>> in email and we can continue our discussion on the list.
>>>
>>> If it would help, I'm also more than open for you and I to have an IRC
>>> conversation, log it, and send the log out to the list.  We do seem to
>>> be a bit stuck :)
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> TomohitoNakayama wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello.
>>>>
>>>> I understand. Sorry for disturbing .
>>>> I had come to feel difficulties in discussing at Wiki.
>>>>
>>>> Should I ask David my question in mailing list once more ?
>>>>
>>>> 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: "David W. Van Couvering"
>>>> <David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM>
>>>> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>>>> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:40 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Discussions on Wiki - WAS Re: SQL functions, procedures
>>>> and PSM - a possible approach
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm getting a little concerned, it feels a little quiet over there
>>>>> in the corner with Tomohito and I, and I was about to propose with
>>>>> Tomohito that we move it back to the list.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This sounds great, Dan!  Is this a good candidate for putting
up
>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>> Wiki site as a proposal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is anyone else concerned by the movement of discussion to the wiki
for
>>>>>> the common code stuff? The Apache way is for discussions to occur
>>>>>> on the
>>>>>> mailing lists. It seems to me that the wiki is a great way to
>>>>>> summarize
>>>>>> such discussions, but not to hold them. A wiki page related to a
>>>>>> discussion can provide a very useful single overview, something that
>>>>>> does get lost in mailings as the discussion spreads out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date:
>>>> 2005/10/06
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date: 2005/10/07
>>
>>
>>
> 


Mime
View raw message