I would lean toward #2 at this point. Out of the box, I'd like to see it working with as many DB's as possible and using the wider supported types makes sense for that. Longer term, a combo of #1 and #3 makes sense with possible a couple variations of RMTxStore with different DB table schemas provided to make it easier to setup.
Dan On Thursday, May 26, 2011 9:12:28 AM Aki Yoshida wrote: > Hi, > My question is about whether we have a statement about which DB > drivers are supported by RMTxStore. > > I saw CXF-3534 that complains the 2.4.0 version of RMTxStore no longer > works for the Oracle driver because of the change in one of the SQL > types used in the table definition. > > The previous version seems to have worked fine with the Oracle driver. > In fact, it was probably once intended to also work with the Oracle > driver because there is a method catching explicitly one of the Oracle > specific driver exceptions. > > How should we do with this ticket? I can think of several options. > > 1. Do nothing and say that anyone using a driver other than derby > should write their own RMTxStore implementation. > > 2. Change the SQL type of those affected fields from BIGINT to > DECIMAL(19,0) so that we can support both derby and oracle (and > possibly a few more) using the current RMTxStore code. > > 3. Provide a set of DB table schema versions specifically for the > drivers so that several other DB drivers can be additionally supported > (e.g. MSSQL). > > My feeling is tending towards 1 or 2 for now. In the future, we could > consider supporting some other drivers out of the box if there is > enough demand. > > Your feedback is appreciated. > > Thanks. > Regards, aki -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://dankulp.com/blog Talend - http://www.talend.com
