The new Derby-specific identifier (DRB) doesn't provide any technical
benefit today. However, as Francois points out, IBM is free to alter the
capabilities of Cloudscape. DRDA clients may need a way to figure out
whether they are talking to Derby or Cloudscape.
If Derby and Cloudscape share the same DRDA product namespace, then this
seems to tightly bind the two products' network capabilities and version
numbers. This is a practical, not a legal statement. Neither Derby nor
Cloudscape is served by confusion over server capabilities.
I like Dan's proposal that Derby owns the CSS and DNC namespaces. Other
databases built from Derby should apply for their own DRDA product ids
if they are going to alter Derby's capabilities. This pushes the
compatibility problem onto Cloudscape.
Unless someone objects, on Friday I will ask our DRDA contact (Ian
Dobson) to make the following changes to the Open Group's website
(http://www.opengroup.org/dbiop/prodid.htm):
o Deprecate the DRB product id
o Instead, make the Derby entry report DNC as client id and CSS as server id
Regards,
-Rick
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Francois Orsini wrote:
I don't think it's OK to share a product ID between IBM Cloudscape and
Derby.
The rational is that IBM Cloudscape is different than Derby - NOT at the
core engine level but at the end the products are labelled differently
and there is no guarantee that IBM Cloudscape will keep the core engine
as the same (strictly identical) as Derby's one in the long run - so
sharing the product ID is not appropriate IMO; even if it looks ok on
principles...
Even if the DRDA identifier is changed to DRB, IBM Cloudscape would use
DRB as IBM Cloudscape is a re-packaging of Derby. If IBM wanted to have
their own DRDA identifier in the future, that of course would be their
decision and they would have to make any changes to make that happen.
The fact is that Derby is using CSS today, and changing that would break
existing applications. IBM is perfectly happy to have Derby continue to
use CSS for Derby and to change the "ownership" at the DRDA site to be
ASF Derby.
Sticking with CSS seems the easiest safest decision, changing it seems
to be changing it for the sake of change. I can't see what value it
would add to Derby, but lack of backwards compatibility is a big problem.
Maybe Rick could explain how it is good for Derby, changing the identifier?
Dan.
disclaimer - I work for IBM.
