You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by scott hutinger <s-...@wiu.edu> on 2004/11/29 22:20:12 UTC
JSR169 support status?
Hi,
I was looking at the JSR169 e-mail from September and October of 2003.
I noticed reference to the TCK and some other information, but was
unsure if the status has changed at all. I would like to see this up
and running in the future, so wanted to try to gather what information
is currently available; if anything has changed from the archived e-mail.
This also might be good to have on the website at some future time :-)
thanks,
scott
Re: JSR169 support status?
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
scott hutinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at the JSR169 e-mail from September and October of
> 2003. I noticed reference to the TCK and some other information, but
> was unsure if the status has changed at all. I would like to see this
> up and running in the future, so wanted to try to gather what
> information is currently available; if anything has changed from the
> archived e-mail.
>
> This also might be good to have on the website at some future time :-)
If anyone could put together a coherent write up for the web site, I'd
be happy to check it into the svn repository and make it available.
-jean
Re: JSR169 support status?
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
> Why the preference for a single jar(with lots of switching code inside)
> rather than different jars for different platform levels?
Ease of use for the software developer, assembler etc. That's the
approach Cloudscape took over the years and the customers and users
liked it. Never have to be concerned about which Derby jar file version
to use or ship.
> I would have thought for the ME platform the desire would be for as
> small a footprint as possible so eliminating all the non-169 code would
> be a benefit. At the other end, the 1.5 build could be optimized for
> that platform with features not in others (e.g. StringBuilder, atomics,
> ...) - plus no need to use reflection for toPlainString() :-)
Well, we do optimize the code for the platform within that single jar,
I've stated earlier that, for example, with J2SE 5.0 Derby should use
the MathContext class for arithmetic with BigDecimal.
As for footprint, the bulk of the code is in the SQL language
implementation, so while we could get a smaller jar for J2ME, currently
it wouldn't be much smaller. So not much benefit.
Anyway, the first thing is to get the code written to allow us to run on
JSR169!
Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBq8x0Iv0S4qsbfuQRAmRGAJ92kWAbNppV6LVl94UicTBjQ3OEXwCcDbvL
a660kefzIQbgkhWc50Mqxuw=
=NO5f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: JSR169 support status?
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@gluecode.com>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
> Rather than a feature, it's Derby's support for that environment.
>
> Today Derby supports from a single jar
>
> J2SE 1.3 - requires JDK 1.3 to build
> J2SE 1.4 - requires JDK 1.4 to build
> J2SE 5.0 - runs in, doesn't yet take advantage of any J2SE 5.0 feature
> (except through reflection for BigDecimal.toPlainString)
>
>
> Continuing that forward, I imagine in the future Derby will support from
> a single jar
>
> J2ME/CDC/Foundation/JSR169 - requires foundation and JSR169 jars to build
> J2SE 1.3 - requires JDK 1.3 to build
> J2SE 1.4 - requires JDK 1.4 to build
> J2SE 5.0 - requires JDK 1.5 to build
> (takes advantage of J2SE 5.0 features)
>
Why the preference for a single jar(with lots of switching code inside)
rather than different jars for different platform levels?
I would have thought for the ME platform the desire would be for as
small a footprint as possible so eliminating all the non-169 code would
be a benefit. At the other end, the 1.5 build could be optimized for
that platform with features not in others (e.g. StringBuilder, atomics,
...) - plus no need to use reflection for toPlainString() :-)
--
Jeremy
Re: JSR169 support status?
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>> Yep, so it would be a required download for those wishing to compile
>> Derby, not part of the archive at apache. Much like the other jar files
>> that are required to be downloaded before building Derby.
>
>
> Well..... :)
>
> Is this required for building, or required for building for some
> optional feature?
Rather than a feature, it's Derby's support for that environment.
Today Derby supports from a single jar
J2SE 1.3 - requires JDK 1.3 to build
J2SE 1.4 - requires JDK 1.4 to build
J2SE 5.0 - runs in, doesn't yet take advantage of any J2SE 5.0 feature
(except through reflection for BigDecimal.toPlainString)
Continuing that forward, I imagine in the future Derby will support from
a single jar
J2ME/CDC/Foundation/JSR169 - requires foundation and JSR169 jars to build
J2SE 1.3 - requires JDK 1.3 to build
J2SE 1.4 - requires JDK 1.4 to build
J2SE 5.0 - requires JDK 1.5 to build
(takes advantage of J2SE 5.0 features)
Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBq8OhIv0S4qsbfuQRAvqNAJ91/cGY7A8UCL/IPuXvm6wrKuJb2wCgzjk9
5nnFaO8twiOvaRVibQrOzto=
=brGG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: JSR169 support status?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@gluecode.com>.
On Nov 29, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Remember, right now, the odds are that the RI will be released under
>> the
>> dreaded Sun Binary Code License, a license which prevents the ASF from
>> keeping such-licensed code in our CVS/SVN.
>
> Yep, so it would be a required download for those wishing to compile
> Derby, not part of the archive at apache. Much like the other jar files
> that are required to be downloaded before building Derby.
Well..... :)
Is this required for building, or required for building for some
optional feature?
>
> Dan.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFBq6niIv0S4qsbfuQRAvRrAKC2PwLCii/iJPTwbuQWyFdiQVCddACgj75O
> zroo3lBiI43WZm39uE8amtQ=
> =Sy3O
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geir@gluecode.com
Re: JSR169 support status?
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2004, at 3:10 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> isn't this also the implementation?
>
>
> Based on an inspection of J2SE, I think the only class that may be
> challenging is java.sql.DriverManager, but everything else looks
> straight forward. Of course, the 169 spec may have more implementation
> then J2SE.
>
> -dain
>
>
To tie back to the beginning, some of the issues I originally discussed in
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=derby-dev@db.apache.org&msgNo=536
Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD4DBQFBq8RbIv0S4qsbfuQRAka5AJYgoesxN20DHmXD+6EikDQSSN2RAJ4zHen5
qwOKCvSyALdGOyeJ58MkrQ==
=lpaf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: JSR169 support status?
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <ds...@gluecode.com>.
On Nov 29, 2004, at 3:10 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> isn't this also the implementation?
Based on an inspection of J2SE, I think the only class that may be
challenging is java.sql.DriverManager, but everything else looks
straight forward. Of course, the 169 spec may have more implementation
then J2SE.
-dain
Re: JSR169 support status?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@gluecode.com>.
isn't this also the implementation?
On Nov 29, 2004, at 6:07 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2004, at 2:59 PM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Remember, right now, the odds are that the RI will be released under
>>> the
>>> dreaded Sun Binary Code License, a license which prevents the ASF
>>> from
>>> keeping such-licensed code in our CVS/SVN.
>>
>> Yep, so it would be a required download for those wishing to compile
>> Derby, not part of the archive at apache. Much like the other jar
>> files
>> that are required to be downloaded before building Derby.
>
> It is just the java.sql package. Why not just type it in? It is only
> 18 interfaces, 7 classes, and 4 exceptions in J2SE. We do this all
> the time in geronimo to avoid the Sun license sillyness.
>
> -dain
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geir@gluecode.com
Re: JSR169 support status?
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <ds...@gluecode.com>.
On Nov 29, 2004, at 2:59 PM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Remember, right now, the odds are that the RI will be released under
>> the
>> dreaded Sun Binary Code License, a license which prevents the ASF from
>> keeping such-licensed code in our CVS/SVN.
>
> Yep, so it would be a required download for those wishing to compile
> Derby, not part of the archive at apache. Much like the other jar files
> that are required to be downloaded before building Derby.
It is just the java.sql package. Why not just type it in? It is only
18 interfaces, 7 classes, and 4 exceptions in J2SE. We do this all the
time in geronimo to avoid the Sun license sillyness.
-dain
Re: JSR169 support status?
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> Remember, right now, the odds are that the RI will be released under the
> dreaded Sun Binary Code License, a license which prevents the ASF from
> keeping such-licensed code in our CVS/SVN.
Yep, so it would be a required download for those wishing to compile
Derby, not part of the archive at apache. Much like the other jar files
that are required to be downloaded before building Derby.
Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBq6niIv0S4qsbfuQRAvRrAKC2PwLCii/iJPTwbuQWyFdiQVCddACgj75O
zroo3lBiI43WZm39uE8amtQ=
=Sy3O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: JSR169 support status?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@gluecode.com>.
On Nov 29, 2004, at 5:45 PM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> scott hutinger wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was looking at the JSR169 e-mail from September and October of 2003.
>> I noticed reference to the TCK and some other information, but was
>> unsure if the status has changed at all. I would like to see this up
>> and running in the future, so wanted to try to gather what information
>> is currently available; if anything has changed from the archived
>> e-mail.
>
> Those e-mails are actually from September and October of 2004, this
> year, thus they are still pretty much up to date.
>
> In order to support JSR169, Derby obviously needs to be compiled
> against
> JSR169 and as far as I know there is no widely available JSR 169
> library
> for download. Once a reference implementation appears on the
> java.sun.com site, changes can be made to the codeline that require
> that
> library. Until then, I'm working on the changes required.
Remember, right now, the odds are that the RI will be released under
the dreaded Sun Binary Code License, a license which prevents the ASF
from keeping such-licensed code in our CVS/SVN.
geir
>
> Dan.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFBq6anIv0S4qsbfuQRAg/SAKCayof9Ad8w2XDg4dOAsi6Ih2mikgCgwJtF
> wqnNzsS/0JZyYXQ2Hgqa9BA=
> =MlGe
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geir@gluecode.com
Re: JSR169 support status?
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
scott hutinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at the JSR169 e-mail from September and October of 2003.
> I noticed reference to the TCK and some other information, but was
> unsure if the status has changed at all. I would like to see this up
> and running in the future, so wanted to try to gather what information
> is currently available; if anything has changed from the archived e-mail.
Those e-mails are actually from September and October of 2004, this
year, thus they are still pretty much up to date.
In order to support JSR169, Derby obviously needs to be compiled against
JSR169 and as far as I know there is no widely available JSR 169 library
for download. Once a reference implementation appears on the
java.sun.com site, changes can be made to the codeline that require that
library. Until then, I'm working on the changes required.
Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBq6anIv0S4qsbfuQRAg/SAKCayof9Ad8w2XDg4dOAsi6Ih2mikgCgwJtF
wqnNzsS/0JZyYXQ2Hgqa9BA=
=MlGe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----