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.


View raw message