Jørgen Løland wrote:
3. It is possible to make a separate jar for replication if we solve
some sealing issues (Dan, Narayanan), but with only 65K of
uncompressed class files it may not be worth it (Rick, Jørgen). *Not
concluded yet.*
There are no sealing issues. I saw it wrongly. I guess the thread
concluded by saying sealing is not an issue.
But if this is not a generic replication implementation that would not
be usable by someone who say might
be working on a pluggable storage architecture for Derby I do not see
why it should not be tied to the store
and remain in derby.jar. Also I agree that it is not excessive bloat.
