db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lance J. Andersen" <Lance.Ander...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: default holdability
Date Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:19:26 GMT

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
>> Currently Derby supports a limited combination of ResultSet types and
>> Resultset concurrency modes. Common for all the current combinations, is
>> that Derby can support HOLD_CURSORS_OVER_COMMIT, however for future
>> combinations this may be a problem.
>> We have a problem in that Derby may not be architected to correctly
>> implement "holdable" scrollable updatable resultsets (SUR), and as a
>> fallback, we may consider not to support the holdabilitiy for SUR.
>> I also saw some JIRAs with synopsis:
>> Derby-1005: "Holdability for a connection should automatically become
>> CLOSE_CURSORS_AT_COMMIT for a global transaction."
>> and
>> Derby-1006:"Client allows setHoldability to HOLD_CURSORS_OVER_COMMIT  on
>> both connection and statement in a global transaction "
>> I am not sure these are relevant for the discussion, however it seems to
>> me that there are other places in the system where Derby cannot support
> I think before any SUR changes the only place where holdability is not
> supported is within global (XA) transactions.
> If the initial implementation of SUR doesn't support holdable result
> sets then I think that's a great first step.
>> I think Derby is architected to support the holdability mode
>> CLOSE_CURSOR_AT_COMMIT by all combinations of ResultSets.
>> I therefore find it reasonable to consider changing the *default*
> This is of course a incompatible change for existing applications, and
> has the potential to break them.
>> Clients which depend on HOLD_CURSOR_OVER_COMMIT, should as a consequence
>> explictly set the holdability. I think that a client should not depend
>> on holdability mode without specifying it from the application, or at
>> least check the DatabaseMetadata.getDefaultHoldability() and then call
>> setHoldability() on the Connection it if it depends on something else.
>> If Derby cannot support the specified holdability for a specific
>> resultset type, Derby could downgrade the holdabiltiy, and give a warning.
> The JDBC 3.0 spec is silent on this, sections 14.1.1 and 14.1.2 describe
> what can be done when a ResultSet type or concurrency is not supported.
> However in 14.1.3 there is no comment about what can be done when a
> requested holdability is not supported. Also ResultSet does not have a
> getHoldability method to allow the application to determine if its
> request was honoured or not.
Connection.getHoldability() is intended to be used here as a guideline 
as with JDBC 4 ResultSet.getHoldability has been added.
> I just can't see the value in changing the default behaviour and
> affecting existing applications because holdability is not supported in
> two cases.
> I seem to remember that most users assumed Cloudscape in the past
> supported holdable results sets and expected it to be the default. They
>  were suprised when it didn't.
> Dan.

View raw message