lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dyer, James" <>
Subject RE: Help: SOLR-3430 and Build changes
Date Wed, 02 May 2012 19:55:11 GMT
I did a little digging on this and I'm not sure relying on JavaDB is such a sure bet.  Its
a verbatim copy of Derby 10.2 and while bundled in with the jvm, its not in the classpath
by default.  Also, I have 2 Oracle 1.6 JVMs on my PC and only 1 includes it.  Also, while
the documentation says it is in the "db" directory, on my installation its in the "javadb"
directory.  It would be tricky at best to reliably get this in the tester's classpath, I think.
 It would be safer I think to just include the jar.

My thoughts were to eventually migrate the example to use derby instead of hsqldb.  Maybe
I should either change my test to use hsqldb or change the example to use derby.  Then as
Robert points out, its just a minor build modification to use the jar from the example.  In
any case, the current Mock datasource doesn't emulate a real JDBC driver very well and I found
it was extremely simple to use Derby in in-memory embedded mode (All you do is issue "DriverManager#getConnection"
with the correct string).  There are no config files, etc.  

I don't know if you want to call this a "unit" test or an "integration" test (and what are
all those other Solr tests that use Jetty, etc?).  In the end, I just want readable tests
that are true to real life, which DIH lacks right now.

James Dyer
E-Commerce Systems
Ingram Content Group
(615) 213-4311

-----Original Message-----
From: Uwe Schindler [] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:16 PM
Subject: RE: Help: SOLR-3430 and Build changes

I have not checked this, but if the JavaDB is in the JDK official JavaDocs and is therefore
part of JDK6 spec? We have to check this, but *if* the package names start with java.db or
whatever it *has* to be also in alternate JDK impls. At least OpenJDK also downloads derby
while building.

Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Muir []
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:42 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Help: SOLR-3430 and Build changes
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Uwe Schindler <> wrote:
> > One note:
> >
> > Derby is included since JDK 6 as "JavaDB" together with the JDK:
> >
> >
> > As Lucene/Solr 4 will be using JDK 6 as minimum requirement (in contrast) to
> Solr 3.x (which was JDK 5), can we not simply rely on this version shipped with
> JDK? That would make life easy. And for simple tests that version should be
> enough...
> >
> But we dont require *oracle*s implementation as a minimum requirement.
> we also support IBM etc too?
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional
> commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message