David Van Couvering wrote: > Is it worth considering finding some way for the embedded and client > drivers to share some code, so that the only real difference is that the > network one is sending its commands over the wire?
Possibly, but then you need common JDBC code that writes to a unified internal api (say derby-db-api), and then there are two implementations of derby-db-api, embedded and network. Thus you have to define a derby-db-api that supports all the functionality of JDBC. The current approach is that derby-db-api is JDBC, and the two implementations are the embedded and client drivers. Maybe an extra level of indirection would save some code, but at the end of the day you still need two implementations of something, one for embedded and one for client. I just don't see this approach would be of much benefit. Dan.
