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: DRDA product identifier
Date Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:52:43 GMT
Am not sure how backwards compatibility is not taken care of with Kathey's
first proposal...

I completely agree that the CSS acronym (aka DRDA Cloudscape Server product
ID) is not a big deal to have it become the one for "Apache Derby Network
Server" - the point was more in respect with if we ever end-up with 2
different core engines and your answer such as
"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." sounds good (as the CSS product ID would then be
reclassified as "Apache Derby Network Server" along with DNC addded to the
list)...

Cheers,

--francois

On 11/28/05, Daniel John Debrunner <djd@debrunners.com> 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