db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Matrigali <mikem_...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: [jira] Updated: (DERBY-1156) allow the encrypting of an existing unencrypted db and allow the re-encrypting of an existing encrypted db
Date Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:20:38 GMT

Suresh Thalamati wrote:

> I think returning Ok (true)  is not a right thing to do unless I really 
> check the versions by reading the versions from the control files ..etc.
> Current usage of this function is to make sure database is at the right 
> version before doing any writes that will break the soft-upgrade.
> If some one in the future implements a read-only feature that requires a 
> version check , they can implement this method. Not my itch at the 
> moment :-)

That's fine just leave it, I just looked again and see that 
unimplemented is standard
for the readonly implmentation.  I was confused that you were counting
on an exception, now I see it just never will be called for for readonly 
- only there to fulfill interface.  I was thinking that Readonly 
extended the default impl, and didn't understand why it didn't just
inherit impl.

Before 10.2 goes out, would like to see test showing what user gets
when they try to reencryt a read only db, but no need for this 
incremental commit.


View raw message