db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oyvind.Bakk...@Sun.COM
Subject Re: Derby and portability
Date Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:45:19 GMT
Michael Segel wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 November 2005 15:40, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
> 
> I wasn't going to respond but...
> 
> Sorry to be a nit, but this isn't a bug.

It depends - see below.

> Maybe this is one of my pet peeves, but just because Derby doesn't behave the 
> way you think it should means that there is a "product defect". (A polite way 
> to call something a "bug".)
> 
> Does anyone recall "big endian and little endian" issues?
> Or am I dating myself cause everyone uses Intel these days? ;-)
> 
> You don't just copy a database and drop it on a new system and say voila! 

Well...actually, that's what my original question was all about. You 
see, I have seen sentences like "on-disk database format is portable 
too" in Derby presentations (don't bother to look up references to them 
now), so I wanted to clarify whether this is (or should be made) part of 
Derby's charter. If so, then any violation of that would, in fact, be a 
bug. And then you _should_ be able to copy a database, drop it on a new 
system and say voila.

I know developers want to create applications and deploy them with 
pre-built databases on multiple platforms. For them, just the fact that 
"it seems to be working today" isn't good enough - they need a statement 
that this is a Derby feature they can rely on.

Then they won't end up calling something a bug just because it doesn't 
behave the way they think it should. (They would call it a bug since it 
violates the Derby charter. ;o)

-- 
Oyvind Bakksjo
Sun Microsystems, Database Technology Group
Trondheim, Norway
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/bakksjo/

Mime
View raw message