db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stanley Bradbury <Stan.Bradb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: When and why use DB2UDB jdbc driver instead of the Derby ClientDriver to access a DERBY NETWORK SERVER?
Date Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:11:06 GMT
rigel wrote:
> Hello, I would like to understand when and why is it useful to prefer 
> the DB2UDB jdbc driver instead DerbyClient to access a DERBY NETWORK 
> SERVER? Performance reasons or jdbc version implementation? Thanks for 
> attention, bye
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> View this message in context: When and why use DB2UDB jdbc driver 
> instead of the Derby ClientDriver to access a DERBY NETWORK SERVER? 
> <http://www.nabble.com/When-and-why-use-DB2UDB-jdbc-driver-instead-of-the-Derby-ClientDriver-to-access-a-DERBY-NETWORK-SERVER--tp18669150p18669150.html>
> Sent from the Apache Derby Users mailing list archive 
> <http://www.nabble.com/Apache-Derby-Users-f93.html> at Nabble.com.
Always use the Derby Client driver.

With release 10.0 of Derby there was no open source client driver so the 
DB2 driver was required to use Network Server.  With Derby 10.1 the 
Derby Client driver was introduced and the recommendation made everyone 
use that client driver.  This remains true today.




Mime
View raw message