On Tuesday 29 November 2005 14:13, Rick Hillegas wrote: > Hi Ian, > > This sounds like the wrong behavior to me, and you are welcome to file a > bug. I realize that is cold comfort. > > Regards, > -Rick
Uhm yes, silly question. How is it a bug? Not to sound Clinton-esque, but what do you mean when you say "read-only"? From Derby's Developer Guide (My version has it on page 30): "You can create Derby databases for use on read-only media such as CD-ROMs. Derby databases in zip or jar files are also read-only databases. Typically, read-only databases are deployed with an application in an embedded environment." [Note any spelling errors are mine. ;-] So, by this, it is not a bug to stop the creation of temp tables by the user when you create a read-only database. Sometimes I wonder if people are trying to create read-only copies of a derby database because there is no concept of PERMISSIONS? (No GRANT/REVOKE statements....) But hey, what do I know?
