[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2469?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mike Matrigali updated DERBY-2469:
----------------------------------
The suggestions by david for handling the experimental checkin sounds
reasonable to me. I still think this code is a too early for a release, given
no testing and todo's like "check if synchronization is needed", but I will
leave the choice up to myrna. The problem
I see is that if it gets into the release it seems very likely more changes
will be necessary pretty soon, and then you have lost the
testing audience as they won't be testing what you want. You want a more
frequent turnaround for this, which I think would be
better served by decoupling the experimental jars from a "supported" release.
Getting it into the development trunk is the first
step so that at least derby developers can always easily get up to date
versions of the code. I am not as sure how to provide
derby user community with very quick up to date experimental jars, I think the
requirements for this are very different than the
standard code.
Will the testing that is being done currently result in new junit tests be
added to the nightly suites?
> Java Web Start JNLP PersistenceService API storage support
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2469
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2469
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Store
> Affects Versions: 10.2.2.0
> Environment: Java Web Start
> Reporter: Luigi Lauro
> Assignee: David Van Couvering
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 10.3.0.0
>
> Attachments: svn-diff-20070329, svn-diff-20070606, svn-diff-20070612
>
>
> I would love to have Derby write/read to the storage area provided by the
> JNLP PersistenceService API.
> Since Derby is now bundled with the Java6 JDK as JavaDB, I think this
> integration would go a long way towards making derby more developer- friendly
> in Java Web Start environments, where using the sandbox tools Sun provides us
> it the right way to go, instead of working around it and force the user to
> give the app the authorization to write on the hard drive IMHO.
> I'm investigating the effort needed to provide an implementation of the
> WritableStorageFactory interface around the PersistenceService API, and if
> that's doable in a few days work, I will start working on it and submit a
> patch for testing/approval ASAP.
> Feel free to volounteer and provide pointers/hints/whatever, it's really
> appreciate, especially since I currently know nothing of derby internals.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
