Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-ID: <550788686.1236618650598.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dag H. Wanvik (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-4084) Determine the subSubProtocol name
 for the in-memory back end
In-Reply-To: <1190732953.1236614211398.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-4084?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12680202#action_12680202 ] 

Dag H. Wanvik commented on DERBY-4084:
--------------------------------------

I like Bryan's 3rd suggestion:

  jdbc:derby:in-memory:mydb

it says it all, I think.

Both transient and non-persistent, are not necessarily accurate, if the feature to save
on disk at shutdown is implemented and used (or when using backup), so I prefer "in-memory".


> Determine the subSubProtocol name for the in-memory back end
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-4084
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4084
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>    Affects Versions: 10.5.0.0
>            Reporter: Kristian Waagan
>
> The community should agree on a name for the subSubProtocol for the in-memory back end. The name will be used in the connection URL, and it is the mechanism used to tell Derby to use the in-memory back end:
> jdbc:derby:subSubProtocol:dbName
> Two hot candidates are:
>  o mem
>  o memory
> The former is shorter, the latter is slightly more descriptive. If you have opinions on this, please post a comment.
> We should decide on this before we cut the branch for 10.5.

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