[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-5955?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13551796#comment-13551796
]
Dag H. Wanvik commented on DERBY-5955:
--------------------------------------
You are right it will fail on Java 5 due to class load format, thanks. I've
changed the patch (version 02 uploaded) to guard against too old JVM.
While I agree with you that it would be better to have a more generic name for
the reduced functionality data sources, e.g. "simple", I'm slightly worried
that "overloading" the current EmbeddedSimpleDataSource naming with a different
kind of "simple" in EmbeddedSimpleDataSource40. But maybe that's OK, since
presumably we wouldn't see the JSR-169 one need to upgrade to "*40" status and
won't have a naming clash later?
Another option is to use another kind of naming hint, e.g. a "Basic-" prefix
BasicEmbeddedDataSource40, BasicEmbeddedConnectionPoolDataSource40 etc.
What do you think?
> 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: apidiff.zip, client-graph.png,
> derby-5955-client-restructure-01.diff, derby-5955-client-restructure-01.stat,
> derby-5955-client-restructure-02-delta.diff,
> derby-5955-client-restructure-02.diff, derby-5955-client-restructure-02.stat,
> derby-5955-embed-restructure-01.diff, derby-5955-embed-restructure-01.stat,
> derby-5955-embed-restructure-02.diff, derby-5955-embed-restructure-02.stat,
> derby-5955-embed-restructure-03.diff, derby-5955-embed-restructure-03.stat,
> derby-5955-embed-restructure-04.diff, derby-5955-embed-restructure-04.stat,
> derby-5955-embed-restructure-followup.diff,
> derby-5955-embed-restructure-followup.stat,
> derby-5955-new-non-jndi-ds-01.diff, derby-5955-new-non-jndi-ds-01.stat,
> derby-5955-proof-of-concept-2.diff, derby-5955-proof-of-concept-2.stat,
> 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, 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
