db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Should network client and engine be *required* to match SQL States? (was Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1149) 'jdbc40/StatementTest.junit' fails under DerbyNetClient)
Date Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:02:21 GMT
I think you have a good point, and I think that what we can shoot for is 
over time targetting having the same canons for embedded and network client.

Of course, if we took the original intent of the 'am' (Abstract Machine) 
package and put it on top of both the embedded and network code, then a 
lot of this would be taken care of forthwith.  But that is easier said 
than done :)

David

Oystein Grovlen - Sun Norway wrote:
> David W. Van Couvering wrote:
> 
>>> I am also realizing that we as a community need to decide if we want 
>>> to ensure that the network client and the engine should always have 
>>> the same SQL States for the same exceptions.  It's laudable, and if 
>>> we catch differences I think we should fix them, but I am not sure if 
>>> it should be *required*, especially for existing code.  It is *very* 
>>> hard to reliably backport this consistency into existing code, as the 
>>> code paths on the two drivers are quite different.  If anyone has any 
>>> ideas about this, it would be much appreciated.
> 
> 
> This s a requirement if one want be able to run a test both in embedded 
> and client/server mode with the same canon.  Maybe that approach, 
> running tests in both frameworks and compare, could be used to detect 
> differences between client and embedded.  Maybe existing canon can give 
> hints to where there is a difference.
> 

Mime
View raw message