Alan Burlison wrote:
The network server actually uses the embedded driver to perform database
operations, so any application running in the same JVM as the server
could have access to the database directly through the embedded
driver. In your setup, I think it would make sense to use Derby this
way. The servlets could access the database without doing any network
I/O, and thereby improving the performance, whereas the external scripts
could use the network client driver and don't involve Tomcat. Derby's
manuals call this configuration an "Embedded Server" (see
http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.3/adminguide/cadminov17524.html).
I knew it worked, but I didn't know if it was correct to use the
embedded driver in that situation. After following the link you sent I
found the following in:
http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.3/adminguide/radminembeddedserverex.html
"The program that starts the Network Server can access the database by
using either the embedded driver or the Network Client driver."
One other question: If I am attaching to a derby instance that is
running inside the same JVM, should I be using the client driver or the
embedded driver? From observation the client driver works with both
"jdbc:derby://locahost/mydb" and "jdbc:derby:mydb", but should I be
using the client driver only for "jdbc:derby://locahost/mydb" and the
embedded driver for "jdbc:derby:mydb"?
--
Alan Burlison
--
