db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Matrigali <mikem_...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: Derby and portability
Date Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:05:55 GMT
I agree with documenting it as a committment.  All of the code in the
storage engine is designed to make the on disk format portable.  Some
of this is by using java read/write datatype code (in the case of
storing numbers) and some is by doing
it's own byte by byte encoding of the data (in the case of doing it's
own utf8 encoding of unicode strings, or it's own compression of
numerical metadata info).

If a database can't be copied and accessed from another jvm/OS/machine
then there is some sort of bug going on (could be jvm, could be derby,
could be some sort of setup/copy problem).

Oyvind.Bakksjo@Sun.COM wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>> As you say in the first paragraph, database portability is a *feature*
>> of Derby and thus it should be in the documentation (DERBY-711, thanks
>> Jean).
>> Since it's a feature, I wouldn't expect to be in the charter, I think
>> that's too much detail.
> That's ok. Charter or not, as long as there's a written commitment to it 
> somewhere, it's fine. :)

View raw message