db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew McIntyre" <mcintyr...@gmail.com>
Subject default ij protocol (was Re: [WWD] review suspended)
Date Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:19:13 GMT
On 2/23/06, Satheesh Bandaram <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?

Moving this over to derby-dev.

This is an excellent question, and one that we need to think about
before we start documenting this.

In the past ij had been a derby-agnostic tool by default, and I think
that we want it to remain so. But, making the default protocol be
jdbc:derby: will definitely make it easier for user's (especially ones
that know nothing about JDBC URLs), so there's definite value there.
Also, specifying a default protocol doesn't preclude you from
connecting to another database (or at least, it shouldn't) - and doing
that would require knowing about classpath and JDBC URLs *anyway* - so
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

Mime
View raw message