Thank you for the explanation. I gathered this is what it is doing, I just disagree with the implementation, because it imposes an extra constraint which may be undesirable to some. If it didn't create an extra directory level, the user could choose to create an extra directory level if they wanted, or not if they didn't want. I guess it wouldn't be so bad if I can do a file move which doesn't require copying. I'll have to see if Java has support for this. maybe File.renameTo() will accomplish this.
Jim _____ From: Manjula Kutty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:01 AM To: Derby Discussion Subject: Re: backup destination In Derby the your given db name is the same as the directory name. So if your database named "myDb" is in c:\a, then the directory structure will show as c:\a\MyDb and if you want that db (here MyDB) to be backed up in a:\d derby will back up the whole MyDB (will not rename to "d"). So your backed up db will be inc:\d and the directory structure for the backupdb will be c:\d\MyDb. If this is not clear, more information is provided here http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.2/adminguide/ Thanks Manjula On 3/1/07, Jim Newsham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there any particular reason that the built-in system procedure for backing up a database doesn't back it up to the directory I specify, but to a subdirectory of the directory I specify? For example, if my database is in a directory called c:\a\b and I request to back it up to c:\d, it puts it in c:\d\b. This is a bit annoying, and confusing for end users. Thanks, Jim
