geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lichtner <licht...@bway.net>
Subject Re: Supporting applications that need a database
Date Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:13:30 GMT

I don't generally like default things when the default is a completely
arbitrary choice, as is the case here. This is not like a default port
number.

If someone is having trouble configuring a database then he/she or someone
else should write a tool that tries to configure out the settings, not
dumb down the software for everyone else.

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, David Jencks wrote:

> Dain has been complaining that the default database is no more and
> IIUC suggesting that we reinstate it and by default hook at least ejb
> applications that don't have an explicit database configuration up to
> it.  Since I removed the default database I'd like to somewhat
> preemptively explain my thinking.
>
> Based on my support experiences with another app server that did
> something like this, I think this is a really bad idea.  What
> happened there was that no one knew how to connect their app to a non-
> default database, and we got zillions of problem reports based on the
> app using the default database rather than the one that was
> misconfigured :-)
>
> I also don't think that encouraging all applications to use the same
> database is a very good policy.  It certainly invites collisions
> between applications and reduces portability.
>
> We have the capabilities to build a derby database for a particular
> schema, and package it , and to bundle a datasource configuration
> with a j2ee app plan.  This is used for the daytrader and uddi server
> configurations.  Rather than including a database no one should
> want :-) and encouraging people to use it, I would rather see us
> automate the construction of a configured database for an app, and
> the construction and bundling of a datasource configuration with the
> app's plan.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>

Mime
View raw message