[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4578?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12843233#action_12843233
]
Dag H. Wanvik commented on DERBY-4578:
--------------------------------------
Thanks for improving this, Kim! Just a small detail:
> You can allow multiple Derby instances that need to access that database to
> connect to
> the server.
That would be "applications on multiple JVMs" that need access to that
database, not "Derby instances".
The server would host the (single) Derby instance allowed to boot the database.
> Documentation: Developer's Guide topic on double-booting is mostly obsolete
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-4578
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4578
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Documentation
> Affects Versions: 10.5.3.0
> Reporter: Kim Haase
> Assignee: Kim Haase
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: cdevdvlp20458.html, DERBY-4578.diff
>
>
> The topic "Double-booting system behavior",
> http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/dev/devguide/cdevdvlp20458.html, mostly
> describes issues that come up if you use a JDK earlier than 1.4. Since such
> JDKs are no longer supported for Derby, the info about these issues should be
> removed. What needs to remain is that with the embedded driver, Derby DOES
> prevent two instances of Derby from booting the same file-system database.
> The problem doesn't exist with in-memory databases -- the db doesn't exist
> outside the JVM, so multiple Derby instances could refer to an in-memory db
> with the same name, but they wouldn't be the same db. That needs to be said
> too.
> The last paragraph, to the effect that if more than one Derby instance needs
> to access the same database you should use the Network Server, can remain
> (with some edits).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
