Rick Hillegas wrote: > Hi Dan, > > This is pretty cool. I have to say, though, I would need some heavy > motivation before embarking on implementing SQL/PSM. IMHO, Java is more > expressive, more powerful, and better designed than SQL/PSM. Java is > better defined and less ambiguous. Moreover, I suspect that Java code is > more portable than vendor-specific dialects of SQL/PSM. In short, I > think Java is a superior dbproc language.
I agree, Java is a powerful language that does allow integration of all manner of things with Derby, such as Java mail, James, lucene, Jython, Groovey etc. I think however your perspective is that of a Java developer (and as a Java developer myself I agree with you). >From the point of view of a SQL developer though, it's not the same. In order to write a simple function I have to: 1) write Java code 2) compile the class 3) put into a jar file 4) install it into Derby 5) create the function Or if I did the same in SQL, I would have to 1) create the function. Similar issues exist for multiple statements in a trigger, again Derby forces them to write Java code. I know folks are interested in using Derby who know nothing about Java and don't want to know anything about Java. They just want a quality data server. I think there is a place for both Java and SQL functions etc., the developer can pick the right tool for the right job. Dan.
