Thanks Kristian and Kathey. It indeed seems to be the case as mentioned by Kristian for EngineStatement.
I see that there are lot of unused methods in the package org.apache.derby.iapi.jdbc Some are overloaded methods calling other definitions of the same method so I am not pretty sure if they are redundant or just they do not have any test case for them. Would a Jira issue be an appropriate place to start with this discussion ? On 11 June 2012 23:14, Katherine Marsden <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/10/2012 2:13 AM, Kristian Waagan wrote: >> >> On 10.06.2012 05:36, siddharth srivastava wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> I went through the entire package org.apache.derby.iapi.jdbc. >>> The emma code coverage report, doesn't seem to have EngineStatement >>> and the related classes, AuthenticationService but as I see they are >>> already used in the unit tests. I am just wondering what may be the >>> reason behind it. >> >> >> Hi Siddharth, >> >> Isn't EngineStatement an interface? >> Not sure how the various code coverage tools cover interfaces, maybe they >> only record coverage for the implementing classes? >> (for interfaces they could of course only tell which methods have been >> invoked or not, in addition to recording coverage for static blocks and/or >> field initializations) >> >> > Just as a historical note, the Engine* classes were created for the > instances where Network Server needed to call into otherwise non-public sql > interfaces of the engine and needed a consistent way to interface to > Brokered vs Embedded Connections, Statements etc. Prior to Dan creating > these there was a lot of very messy reflection in Network Server. I see > calls into EnginePreparedStatement but not EngineStatement in the DRDA code. > You might want to look at the svn history to see a more complete story. In > Eclipse you can right click team -> Show history and then right click -> > Compare to navigate quickly. > > Kathey > > > -- Regards Siddharth Srivastava
