db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan P Bobko <r...@ostrich-emulators.com>
Subject Re: advice for client/server application
Date Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:05:41 GMT
Oh, the usual. Stick your head in the ground or run away when anything 
happens. Maybe it doesn't translate well? Darn this English as a first 

On Thursday 23 March 2006 07:02 pm, David W. Van Couvering wrote:
> I do have to ask, what does it mean to emulate an ostrich?
> David
> Ryan P Bobko wrote:
> > Thanks for the advice. That's probably what I needed to hear.
> >
> > ry
> >
> > On Thursday 23 March 2006 06:31 pm, David W. Van Couvering wrote:
> >>Yes, I see what you're saying, you're rewriting JDBC extended with file
> >>transfer.
> >>
> >>You could take the Derby source and extend it so that you can do file
> >>transfer functionality, but then you're stuck with your own fork of
> >>JDBC.  And I'm sorry to say that the Derby community would likely not
> >>accept your changes back (someone correct me if I'm wrong) because there
> >>would be non-standard extensions to JDBC, and we strive to be
> >>standards-compliant as a community.
> >>
> >>Personally, I would just open two connections: one for JDBC work and one
> >>for file transfer.  Keep them separate.
> >>
> >>David
> >>
> >>Ryan P Bobko wrote:
> >>>Thanks for the advice, but I'm not sure if that will help. I now realize
> >>>what makes me uneasy about my architecture is that I feel like I'm
> >>>rewriting JDBC little by little just so I can have my file-moving piece
> >>>on top of it. JDBC works great for my purposes, so my preference would
> >>> be to remove my custom protocol whenever possible. Is it feasible to
> >>> extend the JDBC API? Or will that just be more trouble than it's worth?
> >>>
> >>>I realize I just changed my question. Any more advice?
> >>>
> >>>ry
> >>>
> >>>On Wednesday 22 March 2006 07:23 pm, David W. Van Couvering wrote:
> >>>>A common way client applications working with large result sets have
> >>>>handled the "too much memory" problem that I've seen is to send the
> >>>>results over in chunks.  Instead of sending all 120,000 records in one
> >>>>response, just send 100 or 1,000.  The client processes those 1,000
> >>>>records, throws them away, and get the next 1,000.
> >>>>
> >>>>Would that work for you?
> >>>>
> >>>>David
> >>>>
> >>>>Ryan P Bobko wrote:
> >>>>>Hi List,
> >>>>>First of all, I can't say enough how impressed I've been with Derby.
> >>>>>Every time I've thought this embedded wouldn't be able to do something
> >>>>> I expect from a "full-blown" database (nested selects, correlated
> >>>>> subqueries, stored procedures, you name it), it's suprised me. I
> >>>>> it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This isn't strictly a Derby question, but I'm hoping for some advice
> >>>>> or suggestions with how to procede. I've been working on an
> >>>>> application that is a sort of half-database, half-FTP client/server
> >>>>> setup. The protocol I've implemented between the client and server
> >>>>> lets the app do things like run queries, but also move files around
> >>>>> based on those results. Or insert rows into the database based on
> >>>>> where files have moved to. Files can be moved from the server to
> >>>>> client and vice versa.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Things have been working just fine, except that when I run queries,
> >>>>> the server process does all the work and returns the results as
> >>>>> vector of string arrays. It's never sat well with me--and as you
> >>>>> imagine--now that the dataset is getting pretty big (120.000-4KB
> >>>>> returned for some queries), I'm using too much memory.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What I'd like to do is get my jdbc connection object onto the client
> >>>>> so I don't have to "package" everything up when returning resultsets.
> >>>>> The question is how?  My first idea was to just use derby's network
> >>>>> server and write the file protocol separately, but I'd prefer to
> >>>>> stick with just one socket if I can.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Advice? Thanks for your time.
> >>>>>ry

When I turn into one of them, I will no longer be Jacob.
I will be a lapdog of Satan.

View raw message