-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> The crude bit is needing to make connections to the server to start it > up or shut it down. This could be replaced with calls to the Monitor > interface in a manner similar to what JDBCBoot.boot() does. This would > also allow us to make properties like derby.service.jdbc manageable. Why not use the JDBC driver to start the server, then you don't need the connection to a dummy database? The JDBC driver and DataSource implementations can be used interchangeably. > Going further, the configuration of Derby itself is defined by > modules.properties. The intention appears to be to allow people to > create different configurations of the server for different applications > (much like Cloudscape used to). For Geronimo there is a lot of stuff in > there that is not needed - for example, we are mandated by J2EE to use a > 1.4 JVM so when Derby is embedded inside we would not need any of the > configurations that support older versions. Well, the JDK 1.4 implementation of Derby requires about 99.99% of derby,jar, so it's not really that Geronimo is burdened by a lot of unused stuff. > As an example of tighter integration, I can see us coupling Derby to the > application server's authorization mechanisms. We have a Subject > associated with any user Thread and have a SecurityManager in place to > support JACC so I think it would be useful to allow Derby to use that > identity and policy enforcement during SQL execution. To do that we > would lower level integration than that supported by UserAuthenticator. I think this is really saying that Derby should be supporting JAAC (JACC?) in some way, rather than the monitor api should be exposed. I agree closer integration would be good, but exposing internal api's that are not standard removes flexibility in modifying those interfaces in the future. AT this point I can't see any clear benefit to Derby or Geronimo in exposing the monitor interface, since Derby already has api's to start and stop itself. Dan. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBrLlcIv0S4qsbfuQRAlPfAKDFN7J+P7yelBBy765lECjhk2VmbQCgjrzV mdYCO8vmSWCaa28SCojQGW4= =DwWt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
