From: "Mike Matrigali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From responses to Dan's original post on building a system with the > sync options disabled it seemed like there was enough response that > those options should be made available. I admit I am worried because > this system can no longer guarantee recoverability. It would be > interesting to know how people would use such a configuration.
I agree with you that a database system without recoverability is useless. The memory option is better if someone wants to create a database on the fly and has no need to store it on disk. In my own testing with Derby, I get frustrated with the startup overhead of the embedded database. If XA was supported in the network server option, my problem would be solved. I would no longer use the embedded option when testing - and avoid the startup overhead. I think that before considering the less durability option, it would be better to think what problem people are trying to solve, and see if there is a better and more useful way of solving it. A key differentiator of Derby is its full support for recoverability. In my view, it is not a good idea to dilute this in any way. In many ways, I suppose the question is - what is the community really after? Does it want to be everyman's development database, or does it aspire to be a production strength database that can be used in mission critical systems? Regards Dibyendu
