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: DRDA confusion
Date Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:21:49 GMT
Bryan Pendleton wrote:
>> Given there is a well documented wire protocol (DRDA) why would we 
>> invent a new different wire format for some commands?
>>
>> Following an open standard is a good thing and does allow other 
>> parties to implement clients against Derby.
> 
> Well put.
> 
> I think I worded my message too strongly. Let me try again:
> 
> Given that:
>  - our client talks only to our server
>  - there aren't any freely available compliance tests for DRDA that
>    I know of
>  - most of the community doesn't know much more about DRDA than what
>    we read in the spec
> 
> How would we know whether we had implemented the wire format correctly
> or not?

By people reviewing the code, by the coders including references to the 
spec when coding, by finding out by someone looking at the code later 
(maybe the incorrect implementation clashes with a new correctly 
implemented command), by someone executing a non-Derby DRDA tool against 
Derby, etc.

> That is, if we give our best shot at implementing this new SQLSTT
> verb, but we don't get the wire format exactly right, what would be
> the actual implications for us?

I think it would be the same as if we implemented any other spec 
incorrectly. E.g. LIKE with language based collation was changed to 
match the spec.

Dan.

Mime
View raw message