db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: DRDA product identifier
Date Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:34:02 GMT
The new Derby-specific identifier (DRB) doesn't provide any technical 
benefit today. However, as Francois points out, IBM is free to alter the 
capabilities of Cloudscape.  DRDA clients may need a way to figure out 
whether they are talking to Derby or Cloudscape.

If Derby and Cloudscape share the same DRDA product namespace, then this 
seems to tightly bind the two products' network capabilities and version 
numbers. This is a practical, not a legal statement. Neither Derby nor 
Cloudscape is served by confusion over server capabilities.

I like Dan's proposal that Derby owns the CSS and DNC namespaces. Other 
databases built from Derby should apply for their own DRDA product ids 
if they are going to alter Derby's capabilities. This pushes the 
compatibility problem onto Cloudscape.

Unless someone objects, on Friday I will ask our DRDA contact (Ian 
Dobson) to make the following changes to the Open Group's website 
(http://www.opengroup.org/dbiop/prodid.htm):

o Deprecate the DRB product id
o Instead, make the Derby entry report DNC as client id and CSS as server id

Regards,
-Rick

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

>Francois Orsini wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I don't think it's OK to share a product ID between IBM Cloudscape and
>>Derby.
>>
>>The rational is that IBM Cloudscape is different than Derby - NOT at the
>>core engine level but at the end the products are labelled differently
>>and there is no guarantee that IBM Cloudscape will keep the core engine
>>as the same (strictly identical) as Derby's one in the long run - so
>>sharing the product ID is not appropriate IMO; even if it looks ok on
>>principles...
>>    
>>
>
>Even if the DRDA identifier is changed to DRB, IBM Cloudscape would use
>DRB as IBM Cloudscape is a re-packaging of Derby. If IBM wanted to have
>their own DRDA identifier in the future, that of course would be their
>decision and they would have to make any changes to make that happen.
>
>The fact is that Derby is using CSS today, and changing that would break
>existing applications. IBM is perfectly happy to have Derby continue to
>use CSS for Derby and to change the "ownership" at the DRDA site to be
>ASF Derby.
>
>Sticking with CSS seems the easiest safest decision, changing it seems
>to be changing it for the sake of change. I can't see what value it
>would add to Derby, but lack of backwards compatibility is a big problem.
>
>Maybe Rick could explain how it is good for Derby, changing the identifier?
>
>Dan.
>disclaimer - I work for IBM.
>
>  
>


Mime
View raw message