db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stanley Bradbury <Stan.Bradb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: default ij protocol (was Re: [WWD] review suspended)
Date Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:33:31 GMT
Myrna van Lunteren wrote:

> On 2/24/06, *Andrew McIntyre* <mcintyre.a@gmail.com 
> <mailto:mcintyre.a@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 2/23/06, Satheesh Bandaram <satheesh@sourcery.org
>     <mailto:satheesh@sourcery.org>> wrote:
>     > Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>     > >
>     > > java -jar lib/derbytools.jar ij
>     >
>     > IJ started without using the scripts seems to need a JDBC URL to
>     > connect. This may not be obvious to everyone and may seem odd to
>     > non-JDBC/java users. Should IJ (and other tools) be changed to
>     assume
>     > "jdbc:derby:" protocol by default, if not provided? IJ is
>     Derby's SQL
>     > processor, so it seems it should be ok to assume derby URL
>     format, if
>     > none provided?
>         ======  SNIP  ====
>
>     I think maybe this is a non-issue and something we should just do. It
>     does change default behavior, but not in a way that should have any
>     impact.
>
>     Anyone else have a different opinion?
>
>     andrew
>
>
>  
> I wonder - could we leave ij alone, and in run.java add the check for 
> protocol? That way, we leave all the capabilities of calling ij using 
> the old scripts exactly as is, yet provide the ease of use of running 
> java -jar derbytools.jar ij with a default protocol?
>  
> Myrna

If the change is just to create a default for ij.protocol then this 
should have no impact on existing applications.  I like the idea so

+1




Mime
View raw message