[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-393?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707871#action_12707871
]
Trejkaz commented on DERBY-393:
-------------------------------
In the beginning it seemed weird to introduce a new storage factory just to get
read-only access; my patch was intended to be helpful for others who might need
the same thing.
At some point after I submitted this, we lost the *need* for read-only access
as we started needing to update the database.
The feature would still be *useful* for us for performance reasons, as it would
conceivably allow multiple processes to get at the same database without going
via a server.
> Allow multiple JVMs to have read-only access to the same directory-based
> database
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-393
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-393
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Store
> Reporter: Trejkaz
> Attachments: readonly.patch
>
>
> For an application I'm building, we needed to permit multiple JVMs to access
> the same database.
> We couldn't easily use a network server configuration, as it would be
> difficult to figure out who to connect to since either user might want to
> view the database while the other database is offline.
> We couldn't just dump all the data in a JAR file, as our databases often end
> up being several gigabytes in size.
> So what we really need is a version of the directory store which is treated
> as if it were read-only.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
