db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel John Debrunner (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-3351) Implement a Pluggable Storage Engine Architecture in Derby
Date Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:24:34 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3351?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12563648#action_12563648
] 

Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-3351:
----------------------------------------------

> Therefore, by default, it will try to always load these. In a situation where the Store
is replaced, or a different Store is used, this may not be desirable.

No, that's not a problem. The monitor doesn't just load modules from modules.properties and
use them, it selects the module implementation that is suitable for the given environment
by:

  - seeing what the current JDK level is and if a module implementation supports it
  - seeing what classes a module implementation requires and if they exist
  - if the module implements ModuleSupportable and if so asking the module if it can support
the current environment.

As an example, modules.properties today contains three JDBC implementations, JSR169, JDBC
3 and JDBC 4, having multiple exist is not an issue, the monitor selects the correct one.



> Implement a Pluggable Storage Engine Architecture in Derby
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-3351
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3351
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Services, SQL, Store
>            Reporter: Dibyendu Majumdar
>            Assignee: Dibyendu Majumdar
>
> My aim is to create a pluggable storage engine architecture for Derby, so that the default
store implementation can be replaced with alternative storage engines. I have created my own
storage engine which I would like to use with Derby's SQL layer, so that is a motivation.
But I also think that this will benefit the community, and could lead to a pluggable storage
engine architecture similar to that of MySQL.
> I am not yet sure where the storage engine boundary should lie. I would welcome input
in this area.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message