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: Proposal about creating shared component (Re: Questions about what is module to be shared (Re: Discussions on Wik ... ))
Date Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:45:25 GMT
Hi, Tomohito.  I understand your concerns about sharing code.  I think 
we all agree there are many advantages in sharing code (I have seen this 
many times), but I can also see that it can lead you into traps if you 
are not careful.

I agree with you that any new shared component should be put up for a 
vote.  I can add this to the shared component guidelines page.

With this in place, are you satisfied with the guidelines we have in 
place so far?

Thanks,

David

TomohitoNakayama wrote:
> 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