I don't generally like default things when the default is a completely arbitrary choice, as is the case here. This is not like a default port number.
If someone is having trouble configuring a database then he/she or someone else should write a tool that tries to configure out the settings, not dumb down the software for everyone else. On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, David Jencks wrote: > Dain has been complaining that the default database is no more and > IIUC suggesting that we reinstate it and by default hook at least ejb > applications that don't have an explicit database configuration up to > it. Since I removed the default database I'd like to somewhat > preemptively explain my thinking. > > Based on my support experiences with another app server that did > something like this, I think this is a really bad idea. What > happened there was that no one knew how to connect their app to a non- > default database, and we got zillions of problem reports based on the > app using the default database rather than the one that was > misconfigured :-) > > I also don't think that encouraging all applications to use the same > database is a very good policy. It certainly invites collisions > between applications and reduces portability. > > We have the capabilities to build a derby database for a particular > schema, and package it , and to bundle a datasource configuration > with a j2ee app plan. This is used for the daytrader and uddi server > configurations. Rather than including a database no one should > want :-) and encouraging people to use it, I would rather see us > automate the construction of a configured database for an app, and > the construction and bundling of a datasource configuration with the > app's plan. > > thanks > david jencks > >
