If we do revisit the common code problem, I'd like to throw something
else onto the pile of common code: the DRDA constants. Methinks the
network client and server should share these constants rather than clone
them.
Cheers,
-Rick
David Van Couvering wrote:
Thaks, Satheesh. Moving the engine assert mechanism over would
involve either more cutting and pasting or revisiting the "common jar
file problem". Personally, if we do any assert support in the client,
I would like to just use JDK 1.4 assertions (and have it be a no-op
for JDK 1.3 builds).
At any rate, to keep things contained, I am going to just continue
using these error messages as written now, and we can address the
issue around using asserts in the client as a separate JIRA item.
David
Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
I think some of them were inserted during development to support some
kind of assertions. We could change them now as appropriate. Should we
consider using engine's ASSERT() mechanism in the client too?
Satheesh
David Van Couvering wrote:
I meant "suffix" not "suffice"
David Van Couvering wrote:
Hi, all. I am noticing that messages for exceptions thrown in
org.apache.derby.jdbc.ClientBaseDataSource often have the suffice
"bug check: ", for example "bug check: corresponding property field
does not exist".
Does anyone have any history on this and why this is there? Is this
correct, or should I be fixing something as I extract these messages
into a properties file?
Thanks,
David
