[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6945?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16303982#comment-16303982
]
Bryan Pendleton commented on DERBY-6945:
----------------------------------------
Rick, in these reflection/delegation approaches you're considering, is the
indirection and reflection limited to "startup" activities like constructors
and initialization?
Or does it affect the commonly-used methods like those on Connection,
Statement, ResultSet, etc.?
BTW, I agree with you that we simply cannot change the package names of either
the client driver or the embedded driver, and I think that's true of the data
sources as well.
But some of the other classes in org.apache.derby.jdbc are really internal
classes, and probably never should have been in such a "public" package in the
first place.
Yet I can't see that fiddling with package renaming for some of those internal
classes buys us very much.
So it seems like your idea #3 is simply a non-starter.
You're right, this is a pretty big mess. I think we need to find some way to
escalate the visibility of this, and think about it some more, because frankly
I don't really like any of your three proposals (five proposals if you count
the two variants on #2).
Of the 3 (5?) proposals, I'm honestly inclined to choose #1 (combine engine,
client, and shared into a single giant "shared" jar).
Sorry for the downer, but I felt like I had to put it out there.
> Re-package Derby as a collection of jigsaw modules
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-6945
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6945
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 10.13.1.2
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
> Attachments: derby-6945-01-aa-remove_derbyPreBuild_dep.diff,
> derby-6945-02-ab-newDerbySharedJar.diff,
> derby-6945-02-ac-newDerbySharedJar.diff, derby-6945-03-aa-partitionTest.diff,
> derby-6945-04-aa-moveRunClass.diff,
> derby-6945-05-aa-removeRedundant_Attribute_SQLState.diff, jdeps.out.tar
>
>
> Once we commit to building with Java 9 (see DERBY-6856), we should consider
> re-packaging Derby as a set of jigsaw modules. This would result in a
> different set of release artifacts. This might be a good opportunity to
> address the Tomcat artifactory issues raised by issue DERBY-6944.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
