db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jean T. Anderson" <...@bristowhill.com>
Subject Re: multiple webapps many embedded vs single network
Date Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:15:15 GMT
Michael Segel wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jean T. Anderson [mailto:jta@bristowhill.com]
>>Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 1:32 PM
>>To: Derby Discussion
>>Subject: Re: multiple webapps many embedded vs single network
>>
>>Michael Segel wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>Derby wasn't designed to be a central database to multiple apps. So its
>>not
>>>efficient in that role. Note: This is in comparison to IDS, DB2, Oracle.
>>>Derby is not one of those. It lacks the features that they have to act
>>as a
>>>centralized DB, however it does have a much smaller footprint.
>>
>>I disagree with this statement, but perhaps I didn't read this thread
>>carefully and am missing some context.
> 
> [mjs] 
> Knowing you, you haven't really thought about what I was saying.

Actually, I did think about it, but perhaps narrowly to address a common
misconception I encounter (more in the next paragraph). The sentence
that caught my attention was "Derby wasn't designed to be a central
database to multiple apps."

I frequently encounter the misconception that Derby is a single user
database, especially in embedded mode. For those who are confused, I'd
like to make sure that they understand that even in embedded mode Derby
is an ACID-compliant, multiuser database. Derby *is* designed to provide
 database access to multiple apps and users.

 -jean


Mime
View raw message