db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Myrna van Lunteren" <m.v.lunte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: default ij protocol (was Re: [WWD] review suspended)
Date Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:34:06 GMT
On 2/24/06, Andrew McIntyre <mcintyre.a@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

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?


View raw message