[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6945?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16307307#comment-16307307
]
Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-6945:
--------------------------------------
Thanks, Bryan.
Here is another twist on what we could do with org.apache.derby.jdbc:
We could put the package into derbytools.jar:
1) We would advise users to use DriverManager.getConnection() if they want to
run with a super slim configuration (that is, either derby.jar +
derbyshared.jar or derbyclient.jar + derbyshared.jar). We would need to
re-direct ClientDriver to another driver inside derbyclient.jar. We would move
AutoloadedDriver into another package in derby.jar.
2) Users who want to use DataSources would need a beefier environment:
derbytools.jar + derbyclient.jar + derby.jar + derbyshared.jar.
The smallest engine configuration would then increase by 230K (the weight of
derbytools.jar). However, if we do this correctly, then we can isolate the
dependency on java.naming to the beefier configuration. So that reduces the
weight of the smallest engine configuration by 440K, for a net reduction of
210K.
Thoughts?
> Re-package Derby as a collection of jigsaw modules
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-6945
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6945
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 10.13.1.2
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
> Attachments: derby-6945-01-aa-remove_derbyPreBuild_dep.diff,
> derby-6945-02-ab-newDerbySharedJar.diff,
> derby-6945-02-ac-newDerbySharedJar.diff, derby-6945-03-aa-partitionTest.diff,
> derby-6945-04-aa-moveRunClass.diff,
> derby-6945-05-aa-removeRedundant_Attribute_SQLState.diff,
> derby-6945-06-aa-removeOtherSharedDuplicates.diff,
> derby-6945-07-aa-net_client_overlap.diff,
> derby-6945-08-aa-move_shared_iapi_under_shared.diff,
> derby-6945-08-ab-move_shared_iapi_under_shared.diff,
> derby-6945-08-ad-move_shared_iapi_under_shared.diff, jdeps.out.tar
>
>
> Once we commit to building with Java 9 (see DERBY-6856), we should consider
> re-packaging Derby as a set of jigsaw modules. This would result in a
> different set of release artifacts. This might be a good opportunity to
> address the Tomcat artifactory issues raised by issue DERBY-6944.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
