Hi, Tomohito. I understand your concerns about sharing code. I think
we all agree there are many advantages in sharing code (I have seen this
many times), but I can also see that it can lead you into traps if you
are not careful.
I agree with you that any new shared component should be put up for a
vote. I can add this to the shared component guidelines page.
With this in place, are you satisfied with the guidelines we have in
place so far?
Thanks,
David
TomohitoNakayama wrote:
Hello.
I have suspect on next two items.
* '''DRDA networking''' -- providing shared code <snip> message
semantics, datatypes, etc.
Because of synmetry between server and client, some part of
networking protocol component would be similar implementation between
server and client .
However, I think it can be somekind of trap because there would
exists difference of processing between server and client .
* '''Security''' -- provides pluggable security infrastructure that is
common across client and server
I'm not sure required security is same between server and client.
Well, all they are just suspect , and not anymore than suspect now .
I can't assert that they are evil, unless they are explained more
concretely.
// To say the trugh, I feel some kind of beauty in sharing code in DRDA
because of synmetry between server and client , even !
Writing this mail, I noticed that what my concern is the impact and
danger of shared component .
I think shared code can become trap very easily,
because shared component can share , not only something which should be
shared , but also something which should not be shared , between programs.
I feel danger about such a bunch of code being created with silence.
Then, I propose next :
It is subject of voting to create new shared component . New shared
component require passing the vote .
Best regards.
/*
Tomohito Nakayama
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Naka
http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
*/
----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Van Couvering"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Derby Development" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: Questions about what is module to be shared (Re:
Discussions on Wik ... )
If I understand correctly, your concerns Tomohito is that you don't know
whether the versioning guidelines apply until you know better what it is
we are trying to share. I added my comments to the Wiki page on this,
and am including it in this email for ongoing discussion:
====
Let me try to give a sense of what the actual '''components''' would be,
not just the kinds of things that could be shared. Again, these are all
possibilities, not realities, and
* '''Common services''' -- these are basic level services that can
be used across multiple subsystems. This includes things like
internationalization, common error messages and SQL states,
!SanityManager, logging/tracing, version info, and other miscellaneous
shareable services. It is more than possible that functionality which
starts in this component could end up evolving to be its own separate
component, but that does not need to be determined ahead of time.
* '''DRDA networking''' -- providing shared code that is used to
implement the DRDA protocol. Having this in a shared location helps to
ensure that the client and server code are in sync in terms of message
types, message semantics, datatypes, etc.
* '''Security''' -- provides pluggable security infrastructure that
is common across client and server
* '''Common JDBC functionality''' -- this is highly debatable, but
it could be there is code between the client and embedded drivers that
is shareable. Again, just a thought, not a commitment.
In terms of how each of these components manages their sharing, I really
do think this is something that can be defined later. What we want to
establish are the ground rules for how a shared component is versioned,
distributed, and what compatibility rules we need to follow. At this
point we are making no claims to the underlying architecture and
structure of specific shared components, and I do not feel this needs to
be identified at this time. For example, we may decide we want a
common way to load an implementation of an interface at runtime; that is
a separate discussion and does not need to be defined prior to getting
in the basic infrastructure as defined in
SharedComponentVersioningGuidelines.
TomohitoNakayama wrote:
Hello.
I post my questions around shared module.
What is the modules to be shread ?
David shows me the list of modules to be shared in next url.
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ListOfSharedComponent
However, David justs lists them (At least I recognized as so) and,
I think we need to think about this list in order to make it clear what
is the module to be shared .
At first, I think we should think next :
* Definition of each element in the lists.
And I think what we need to be careful about is as next :
* Is granularity of this list reasonable as shared module ?
* Are there any other elements which should be included in this lists ?
* Is it possible to share the element as the shared module ?
Best regards .
/*
Tomohito Nakayama
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Naka
http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
*/
----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Van Couvering"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Derby Development" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: Discussions on Wiki - WAS Re: SQL functions, procedures and
PSM - a possible approach
Hi, Tomohito. It would be great if you could summarize your concerns
in email and we can continue our discussion on the list.
If it would help, I'm also more than open for you and I to have an IRC
conversation, log it, and send the log out to the list. We do seem to
be a bit stuck :)
David
TomohitoNakayama wrote:
Hello.
I understand. Sorry for disturbing .
I had come to feel difficulties in discussing at Wiki.
Should I ask David my question in mailing list once more ?
Best regards.
/*
Tomohito Nakayama
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Naka
http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
*/
----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Van Couvering"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Derby Development" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: Discussions on Wiki - WAS Re: SQL functions, procedures
and PSM - a possible approach
I'm getting a little concerned, it feels a little quiet over there
in the corner with Tomohito and I, and I was about to propose with
Tomohito that we move it back to the list.
David
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
David W. Van Couvering wrote:
This sounds great, Dan! Is this a good candidate for putting up
on the
Wiki site as a proposal?
Is anyone else concerned by the movement of discussion to the
wiki for
the common code stuff? The Apache way is for discussions to occur
on the
mailing lists. It seems to me that the wiki is a great way to
summarize
such discussions, but not to hold them. A wiki page related to a
discussion can provide a very useful single overview, something that
does get lost in mailings as the discussion spreads out.
Dan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date:
2005/10/06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date:
2005/10/07
begin:vcard
fn:David W Van Couvering
n:Van Couvering;David W
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc.;Database Technology Group
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Staff Software Engineer
tel;work:510-550-6819
tel;cell:510-684-7281
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
