Does anyone else have any comments on this? Kathey, are you OK with this change? If so, you could hold off on the patch I submitted and wait for a new one with these changes...
Thanks, David Daniel John Debrunner (JIRA) wrote: > [ > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-243?page=comments#action_66186 ] > >Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-243: >--------------------------------------------- > >David wrote > > >>For this reason, it makes much more sense to use the >>LanguageConnectionContext as the owner of a unique identification for the >>session. >> >> > >I agree, the LCC is the "physical connection", thus having it define the >unique identification matches the definition. > > > >>connection toString should uniquely identify the connection >>----------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Key: DERBY-243 >> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-243 >> Project: Derby >> Type: Improvement >> Components: JDBC >> Reporter: Kathey Marsden >> Assignee: David Van Couvering >> Priority: Trivial >> Fix For: 10.0.2.1, 10.0.2.0, 10.0.2.2, 10.1.0.0 >> Attachments: DERBY-243.diff >> >>The toString() on the Derby connection doesn't print >>unique information. >>for example System.out.println(conn) prints: >>EmbedConnection in the case of derby embedded >>It would be great if the toString() method for connections could be used to >>differentiate one connection from another. >> >> > > >
