Hello.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote :
Not sure I agree with this change. Adding code into the product
(derby.jar) *only* in order to make a unit test pass seems a generally
incorrect approach.
I think that maybe the Diagnosticable interface should be removed. I
think the functionality it is trying to provide is really the domain of
a Java debugger. The classes & mechanism were there to provide access to
non-public fields of classes for debugging, but its approach requires
security compromises to be made, by making such private or non-public
fields accessible.
I thought that diag package should be in derby.jar as framework for user of
derby,
because of reading next description found at javadoc of
org.apache.derby.iapi.services.diag.DiagnosticUtil
http://db.apache.org/derby/javadoc/engine/org/apache/derby/iapi/services/diag/DiagnosticUtil.html
:
The Diagnostic framework is meant to provide a way to include as much diagnostic capability within the distributed release of the
cloudscape product without adversely affecting the runtime speed or foot print of a running configuration that needs not use this
information.
Are you proposing changing how we place this diag package (furthermore
Diagnostic framework ) in whole derby ?
It may be better , because it will reduce size of derby.jar , and make derby
more secure as you said.
//However, I think it is better to have voting , if doing it .....
Best regards.
/*
Tomohito Nakayama
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Naka
http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
*/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel John Debrunner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Derby Development" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-496) unit test
'org.apache.derbyTesting.unitTests.services.T_Diagnosticable' was failed
Tomohito Nakayama (JIRA) wrote:
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-496?page=comments#action_12320680 ]
Tomohito Nakayama commented on DERBY-496:
-----------------------------------------
Description of DERBY-496_2_addition.patch:
Modification:
* Adding DiagnosticUtil explicitly to derby.jar by modifying
extraDBMSclasses.properties
Testing:
* unit/T_Diagnosticable passed.
Not sure I agree with this change. Adding code into the product
(derby.jar) *only* in order to make a unit test pass seems a generally
incorrect approach.
I think that maybe the Diagnosticable interface should be removed. I
think the functionality it is trying to provide is really the domain of
a Java debugger. The classes & mechanism were there to provide access to
non-public fields of classes for debugging, but its approach requires
security compromises to be made, by making such private or non-public
fields accessible.
Dan.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date: 2005/08/30
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date: 2005/08/30
