Sounds like an excellent idea to me. I'd contact the jdbm folks as well since they've done a good job and have also been interested in bringing jdbm to Apache. The problem was there was not enough committers around.
Hope this works out. I would love to have more BSD alternatives to JE especially now that Oracle owns it. Alex Rick Hillegas-2 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 > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/simpler-api-to-the-Derby-store-tp18137499p18371223.html Sent from the Apache Derby Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
