I am just guessing that IBM would be less than overjoyed if Derby lost its ability to be an easy migration path to DB2. Would it not be fairly reasonable, however, to fulfil both requirements. At database creation time a flag could be set to dictate DB2 mode or extended mode. The database could then set an immutable database level property and behave accordingly. True this would introduce some complexity into the system, but it would be politically sensitive while still achieving better functionality.
- joel On Saturday 18 September 2004 20:47, Brian McCallister wrote: > There are a few artificial constraints (1) imposed on Derby, possibly > in the interest of making the DDL/SQL/etc exactly compatible with DB2 > compared to prior versions of Cloudscape. In at least some cases (2) > these constraints are different from the SQL spec, and older versions > of Cloudscape (3) > > While I understand that the IBM developers may not be in a position to > undo these changes, is there any *technical* reason to limit Derby in > this way? If not, will patches submitted to undo these limitations be > accepted? > > -Brian > > (1) > http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/cloudscape/pubs/cloudscape10- > migrate.html#Header_15 > (2) > http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=derby- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=411 > (3) > http://cermics.enpc.fr/~rl/cloudscape/doc/html/coredocs/ > sqlj3.htm#1013025
