No, Derby should be its own database. Better yet, if the developer base so determines Derby could be an 'enterprise-class' database rivaling any previously listed. I don't see where political sensitivity even enters the equation. While I certainly appreciate and am grateful for IBM's contribution of Derby's original source, in order for the project to flourish it will have to determine a destiny of its own. (Though I understand that such a determination could lead to the maintenance of these DB2 compatibility flags).
If you love it, set it free.
Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
I am just guessing that IBM would be less than overjoyed if Derby lost its ability to be an easy migration path to DB2. Would it not be fairly reasonable, however, to fulfil both requirements. At database creation time a flag could be set to dictate DB2 mode or extended mode. The database could then set an immutable database level property and behave accordingly. True this would introduce some complexity into the system, but it would be politically sensitive while still achieving better functionality.
- joel
-- Jason Rimmer jrimmer at irth dot net
