db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Questions about what is module to be shared (Re: Discussions on Wik ... )
Date Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:34:02 GMT
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