db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Francois Orsini <francois.ors...@gmail.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 17:04:09 GMT
On 10/12/05, TomohitoNakayama <tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp> 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
>
> */
>
>
Tomohito,

Pluggable Security Infrastructure is *not* what shared component is bringing
to the table - This is definitely a term which can lead to confusion to the
notion of shared security component - Pluggable Security Infrastructure is
an (infrastructure) implementation and is not directly linked to the way
security logic is shared across the client and the server. This should not
be mentioned as part of Shared component discussion - not saying you did ;)

Again, there is logic which involves the use of security algorithms which is
shared across the client and the server - For instance,
encrypting/decrypting ciphered bytes can and will make use of similar if not
identical code/logic from *both* the client and a remote Derby engine - to
give you an example, some of this logic right now has code *duplicated* in
different packages - this is not what we want and we want to share such
logic which is being used by the client and the server - Again, this is one
particular example - Other ones for instance we particular and computed
hashed bytes logic which would have the implementation logic being shared by
the client and the Derby engine - this needs to be shared as well...

In respect with JDBC, I could also see logic being shared by the client and
Derby engine (logical) tiers at the higher levels, especially in the area of
ResultSetMetadata as well as DatabaseMetaData.

--francois

Mime
View raw message