On 2/28/06, Øystein Grøvlen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Satheesh Bandaram wrote: > > > Until these system privileges are ready, current proposal limits > > accesses that would cause forward compatibility issues. If sqlStandard > > mode allows unrestricted schema creation now, this would cause issues in > > the future where existing applications may need to change or we have to > > introduce another property like what is being done now. Current legacy > > authorization model is not compatible with standard model or what Derby > > might really want to support, but at the same time, we can't drop > > support for it because of existing applications. I believe Dan is try to > > ensure current proposal doesn't create any future compatibility issues, > > even if in the short term, Derby's new capabilities are restrictive. > > My main concern here is usability. As long as the legacy mode is the > default, it seems OK to enforce such restrictions in sqlStandard mode > since it will probably not hit unexperienced users. Will legacy mode > always be the default? Do we plan to switch to sqlStandard mode at some > point in time? >
This would impact Ease of Use which has always been key to the Derby charter. It is nice to get a choice but it can also be confusing - Authentication is turned off by default as well and this came from a ease of use requirement, mostly for embedded environments... > Another important aspect of usability is that a product behaves in a > familiar way. That is, the behavior is similar to similar products. I > am a bit concerned if users will need to know about a specific property > in order to be able to use GRANT/REVOKE. Also, can we really claim to > be standards-compliant if one needs to set specific property in order to > be able to use parts of the standard? > Good point but if you have a way to enforce that feature to be used then I would think it is - If a feature is supported and can be enforced in some RDBMS then I would think it is compliant but that's just IMHO. > I also note that while easy-to-use and standards-based is covered by the > Derby Charter, backward-compatibility is not. ;-) > > -- > Øystein > >
