I agree with Francois. Booting a database with a special client seems
needlessly complicated when it can be externally specified outside of an
application.
I understand where you're coming from now though Øystein.
This all started because I was trying to get alternate StorageFactorys
working in the network client/server setup. I was looking at it from
the perspective that anyone could be connected and doing anything
anywhere on the network server at anytime. So, to just assume what
StorageFactory is already active is the one you want when you dont
specify one may cause unpredictable results in this case.
Stephen
Francois Orsini wrote:
I agree with Oystein on the principle but at the same time we need to be
consistent in the way we specify properties for a database before it is
booted. (booting properties) - like when booting an encrypted database
you would have to specify the 'bootPassword' property in the jdbc
connection URL. If an application is well-written, it should *not*
hardcode the connection URL but make it either a java property or have
it defined as part of a Datasource so that the application does not get
changed when the connection URL does.
If we have a separate client to boot a database, IMHO it is going to
cause confusion and we would end-up having 2 different ways of booting a
database which I don't think it's right.
Just my 0.02 cents...
--francois
On 11/3/05, *Øystein Grøvlen* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>>>> "SF" == Stephen Fitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
SF> Øystein Grøvlen wrote:
>> (Connecting without specifying StorageFactory
>> should just use whatever has been booted.)
>>
SF> 3. If a StorageFactory exists and a connection
is attempted WITHOUT
SF> specifying a StorageFactory, and the StorageFactory in use
is NOT the
SF> default (DirStorageFactory), throw an Exception. I think
this would
SF> be preferred behavior because if you
connected with just
SF> jdbc:derby:dbname you would assume it would be using
the default
SF> StorageFactory.
I do not agree on this. I would like to separate the concerns so that
an application does not need to be rewritten to work with different
storage factories. A special client can be used to boot the database
with the desired StorageFactory.
--
Øystein
