[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-927?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12534258
]
Cheng Che Chen commented on DERBY-927:
--------------------------------------
Folks, I have a question that is related to this area. I was examining the
code in StorageFactoryService.removeServiceRoot() and saw an assert-statement
expecting (serviceName) and storageFactory.getCanonicalName() to be equal.
It is not clear to me why the two strings must be equal. The (storageFactory)
variable comes from StorageFactoryService.privGetStorageFactoryInstance().
Inside that function, the (subSubProtocol) portion of the
(serviceName/databaseName) is chopped off before the (storageFactory) is
initialized with the parameters.
So if (serviceName) contains a subSubProtocol prefix, then it is possible for
the assert-statement to fail, no?
> Cleanup code in the monitor to clarify the relationship between
> StorageFactory and PersistentService
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-927
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-927
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Services
> Reporter: Daniel John Debrunner
> Assignee: Daniel John Debrunner
> Priority: Minor
>
> The addition of the StorageFactory code into the BaseMonitor code muddied the
> water with respect to what is a service and what is a storage factory.
> Cleanup the code and add comments and/or a package.html to describe what is
> going on.
> Look at loading the storage factories through the modules.properties rather
> than the hard-coded list and thus gain the benefit of the standard module
> environment
> checking (jvm level and dependent classes) and ensure classes are loaded from
> modules.properties consistently.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
