[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-5955?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13526319#comment-13526319
]
Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-5955:
-------------------------------------------
Sounds like the interfaces are useful enough for making our internals cleaner,
so we could keep them, but leave them out of the published API. It's easier to
add the interfaces to the published API later if we find that they are useful
to applications, than it is to remove them. So the safe option is to wait and
not add them to the published API just yet. Same reasoning could be used about
EmbeddedBaseDataSource.
I'd prefer the DSI part of the interface names to be spelled out, though, as
the "I" in the abbreviation could just as well stand for "Implementation".
As to ReferenceableDataSource and ObjectFactory, if we're worried that the
existing full DataSources no longer implement them, couldn't we reinsert that
class between EmbeddedBaseDataSource and EmbeddedDataSource in the inheritance
graph? It looks as if that would preserve the original shape of the full
DataSource implementations and not introduce any JNDI dependencies in the
non-JNDI variants.
> Prepare Derby to run with Compact Profiles (JEP 161)
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-5955
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-5955
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Documentation, JDBC, Services, SQL
> Reporter: Dag H. Wanvik
> Assignee: Dag H. Wanvik
> Attachments: client-graph.png, derby-5955-proof-of-concept.diff,
> derby-5955-proof-of-concept.stat, derby-5955-ser.zip, embedded-graph.png,
> old-client-graph.png, old-embedded-graph.png, publishedapi.zip
>
>
> While waiting for a Java module system (aka project Jigsaw), it has been
> decided to define a few subsets of the Java SE Platform Specification, cf JEP
> 161 ( http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/161).
> A quote from the JEP: "More broadly, this feature is intended to enable the
> migration of applications currently built on top of the Java ME Connected
> Device Configuration (CDC) to appropriate Profiles of the Java SE Platform,
> part of the long-term effort to converge CDC with Java SE."
> It would be good if we make Derby to run on such limited profiles. The
> current proposal places JDBC in Compact Profile 2 (cf. link above), while
> other libraries used by Derby, e.g. javax.naming (JNDI) are in Profile 3
> (larger).
> It would be good if Derby could run on the smallest posible platform, i.e.
> Profile 2, but that will probably involve some changes to make Derby
> gracefully limit functionality when some libraries are missing.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
