Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-ID: <11265367.1201638274834.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:24:34 -0800 (PST)
From: "Daniel John Debrunner (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-3351) Implement a Pluggable Storage Engine
 Architecture in Derby
In-Reply-To: <26012008.1201215523987.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ 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.