db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew McIntyre <mcintyr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: POLL - Need for shared code
Date Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:34:04 GMT

On Oct 31, 2005, at 12:50 AM, Dyre.Tjeldvoll@Sun.COM wrote:

> Personally I think that sharing common code is an absolute
> requirement, and I cannot understand why anyone would question it.

<applies hat of devil's advocate>

New functionality (in this case, code sharing) should be questioned  
if it causes a regression in the behaviour of Derby.

> If sharing code causes problems, then those problems have to be
> addressed somehow.

Better now than later. Better to be thorough than to be incomplete.  
Not necessarily in that order. :-)

> I cannot see any linking/versioning problem that would
> justify maintaining multiple copies of the same code, or to maintain
> your own version of external libraries.

That is, unless real world scenarios of Derby use, that currently  
work, cease to function because of changes introduced by code sharing.

Working towards a goal of sharing common code, as often as possible,  
is a *very* good idea. But, I think it's an idea that should be  
applied sparingly, not exceedingly, across the current code base.  
Personally, I feel that it would be better to apply the ideals of  
code sharing to some new functionality (e.g. full text indexing) than  
to try and retrofit the current code to share some particular bit of  
existing functionality.

It's not that I believe that the opportunities for sharing code in  
the current code base cannot be addressed and understood. I just  
think that it may be more productive, at this time, to focus the  
efforts of code sharing on some new functionality for which there is  
no history against which the principles of code sharing need to fight.

That said, itches are there to be scratched. Clearly, David has found  
an itch that is definitely in need of scratching. I encourage him to  
scratch it however he sees fit. :-)


View raw message