db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kathey Marsden <kmarsdende...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: Engine booting, was: Autoloading of JDBC drivers considered harmful?
Date Tue, 30 May 2006 17:47:12 GMT
Rick Hillegas wrote:

> Let me summarize the odd behavior:
> o Under JDBC4, if you explicitly shut down the Derby engine, then 
> subsequent calls to DriverManager.getConnection() will fail.
> o There is a workaround: Explictly reboot the Derby engine by issuing 
> Class.forName() on the embedded driver.
I think Olov also brought  up the good point that the Derby engine will 
start for client programs  just because the derby.jar  is in the classpath.

> You could look at this problem from the following angles:
> 1) This is a Derby bug which we could fix if we separated driver 
> initialization from engine booting.
> 2) This is an odd Derby behavior which we should document: If you 
> explicitly shut down the engine, then if you want to get a connection 
> later, you must explicitly reboot the engine.
> 3) This is a jdk bug. The DriverManager should rerun its autoloading 
> logic if the registered drivers can't get a connection.
> I think we will have a hard time convincing the jdk folks that this is 
> their bug. So I think the choice comes down to (1) vs. (2). I can see 
> this go either way. My instinct is to opt for (2) because it seems 
> less risky.
What are the risks of 1?


View raw message