[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4084?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12680186#action_12680186
]
Bryan Pendleton commented on DERBY-4084:
----------------------------------------
I'm not sure I understand all the implications of the in-memory back end, but
if it
means that my data is completely transient and will be wholly discarded when
the
database is shut down, then I'd be in favor of a URL which makes that rather
explicit:
jdbc:derby:transient:mydb
jdbc:derby:memory-only:mydb
jdbc:derby:in-memory:mydb
jdbc:derby:non-persistent:mydb
> Determine the subSubProtocol name for the in-memory back end
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-4084
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4084
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Affects Versions: 10.5.0.0
> Reporter: Kristian Waagan
>
> The community should agree on a name for the subSubProtocol for the in-memory
> back end. The name will be used in the connection URL, and it is the
> mechanism used to tell Derby to use the in-memory back end:
> jdbc:derby:subSubProtocol:dbName
> Two hot candidates are:
> o mem
> o memory
> The former is shorter, the latter is slightly more descriptive. If you have
> opinions on this, please post a comment.
> We should decide on this before we cut the branch for 10.5.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
