Thanks to everyone who has responded on this thread. I have started a
wiki page for brainstorming this idea. So far the wiki holds:
o A roundup of some facts which surfaced in this email thread
o The beginning of a list of issues which we'll need to address
o A placeholder for a section where we can brainstorm the API itself
o The results of some experiments which I ran to estimate what the disk
footprint of a Derby Lite jarball might be
Please help build out this wiki page with your ideas:
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/DerbyLite
Thanks,
-Rick
Rick Hillegas wrote:
I would like to get the community's feeling about whether we could or
should build a simpler api to the Derby store. I think that this could
be useful for applications which just need to put and get data by key
value. These would be applications which don't need complex queries or
SQL. However, these applications might need transactions, multi-user
concurrency, and recoverability. Without the overhead of the SQL
interpreter, it seems that such a kernel could potentially:
1) Consume fewer run-time resources, occupy a smaller jarball
footprint, and so be a better fit for resource-constrained devices.
2) Be faster.
3) Be simpler to use.
Would the community support such an effort or would this fall outside
Derby's charter?
Thanks,
-Rick
