Alex Karasulu wrote:
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.
a thread started on [EMAIL PROTECTED] about bringing jdbm to Apache:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-general/200806.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
-jean
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
