Jørgen Løland wrote:
I have a few questions regarding replication that would be great
to hear the community's opinion on before the 10.4 branching. The
reason for bringing this up before code freeze is that these will
have impact on existing applications if changed later.
3. Should replication be shipped in a separate JAR file? Pros and
cons as I see it:
+ Remove 65KB (unjared) of class files from derby.jar
+ Possible to have a different security policy file for replication?
- Yet another JAR file
I found the following imports in the SlaveController class.
import org.apache.derby.iapi.error.StandardException;
import org.apache.derby.iapi.store.raw.RawStoreFactory;
import org.apache.derby.iapi.store.raw.log.LogFactory;
import org.apache.derby.impl.store.raw.log.LogToFile;
If SlaveController were moved to a separate replication jar wouldn't
referencing the above classes
from derby.jar result in sealing violations? This would require giving
special
permissions for these packages in the manifest creation in build.xml
like this for example
<section name="org/apache/derby/impl/tools/sysinfo/">
<attribute name="Sealed" value="false"/>
</section>
<section name="org/apache/derby/iapi/services/context/">
<attribute name="Sealed" value="false"/>
</section>
<section name="org/apache/derby/iapi/services/info/">
<attribute name="Sealed" value="false"/>
</section>
<section name="org/apache/derby/jdbc/">
<attribute name="Sealed" value="false"/>
</section>
I am not sure it is good to unseal store level packages.
Narayanan
