db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@debrunners.com>
Subject Re: Derby and portability
Date Thu, 17 Nov 2005 00:56:53 GMT
Oyvind.Bakksjo@Sun.COM wrote:
> The Derby Project Charter (on the web site) states that it should be
> "Pure Java", but it does not say anything about portability for anything
> but the _code_.
> Can one, for example, safely assume that the on-disk database format is
> platform-independent? I have read it somewhere, but I don't see it in
> the charter, so do I have a guarantee that this is an invariant?

The on-disk database format is, by design, portable, actually in Java
it's very hard to do anything else.

You know it's one of the two things that I take for granted with Derby,
because of Java, and always forget to tell people of this useful
benefit. The other is that Unicode is supported and is the only
character set supported, as it's a super-set of all character sets.

Interestingly both of these useful facts are omitted from the
documentation. :-(

And, yes DERBY-588 is a bug, as Andrew points out most likely it is a
jvm bug, as the Java properties file format is also guaranteed to be
platform independent.

The great thing about a portable database format is that an application
can easily ship a pre-built, populated database if it needs to.


View raw message