db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Influencing the standards which govern Derby
Date Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:42:13 GMT
Rick Hillegas wrote:

> I would like to understand how the community influences the standards
> which govern Derby:
> 1) SQL - I've been participating in Derby for a year now. Over the past
> year I don't recall any discussion about a need to change the SQL
> standard. We have proposed new language in rare cases not covered by the
> ANSI volumes. However, I don't recall any attempt to contact the SQL
> group and try to change their spec. Do we need to influence this spec
> and if so, how do we propose to do so?

I've work with the SQL group through IBM's representives (since I work
for IBM). So far from Derby it's been more around getting clarifications
and pointing out areas where the spec is unclear or wrong. I don't know
how an individual would get involved in this process.

You could ask the Postgres folks what why do, or the generic open source
database mailing list - hackers@osdbconsortium.org .

> 2) JDBC - There has been substantial discussion about the upcoming JDBC4
> spec.. Fortunately for us, the spec lead is a member of our community.
> In several cases he has taken our viewpoint back to the JDBC expert
> group and advocated our position. However, we don't know who will lead
> the expert group for JDBC5. How do we expect to influence the next rev
> of JDBC?

The ASF is on the JCP "Executive Committee for J2SE/J2EE", in addition
it seems individuals can join the JCP for $0.


So it seems plenty of opportunity to get involved in the next JDBC.

> 3) DRDA - Over the last year, I failed to get a Boolean datatype into
> the DRDA spec. This stemmed from the internal dynamics and pay-for-play
> nature of the spec's governing body, the DBIOP Consortium. How do we
> expect to influence the DRDA spec?

Do you have a summary of what happened, I remember e-mails that the
DBIOP was getting back together and now your comments that the process
didn't work, but I don't recall seeing anything inbetween.

> If there's a general solution which covers all of these cases, that's great. 
> If we handle each spec differently, that's fine too. I'd just like some discussion and

I would guess it's going to be different in each case.


View raw message