Issue of removing Diagnostic framework (Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-496) unit test 'org.apache.derbyTesting.unitTests.services.T_Diagnosticable' was failed)

[TomohitoNakayama <to...@basil.ocn.ne.jp>]

Hello.

Now, I think issue of removing Diagnostic framework should be told as other issue than DERBY-496.
Please post comment to the new issue about changing how we place the diag package .

Best regards.

/*

         Tomohito Nakayama
         tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
         tomohito@rose.zero.ad.jp
         tmnk@apache.org

         Naka
         http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html

*/
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "TomohitoNakayama" <to...@basil.ocn.ne.jp>
To: "Derby Development" <de...@db.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-496) unit test 'org.apache.derbyTesting.unitTests.services.T_Diagnosticable' was failed


> Hello.
>
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote :
>> Not sure I agree with this change. Adding code into the product
>> (derby.jar) *only* in order to make a unit test pass seems a generally
>> incorrect approach.
>>
>> I think that maybe the Diagnosticable interface should be removed. I
>> think the functionality it is trying to provide is really the domain of
>> a Java debugger. The classes & mechanism were there to provide access to
>> non-public fields of classes for debugging, but its approach requires
>> security compromises to be made, by making such private or non-public
>> fields accessible.
>
>
> I thought that diag package should be in derby.jar as framework for user of derby,
> because of reading next description found at javadoc of org.apache.derby.iapi.services.diag.DiagnosticUtil
>
> http://db.apache.org/derby/javadoc/engine/org/apache/derby/iapi/services/diag/DiagnosticUtil.html :
> The Diagnostic framework is meant to provide a way to include as much diagnostic capability within the distributed release of the 
> cloudscape product without adversely affecting the runtime speed or foot print of a running configuration that needs not use this 
> information.
>
>
> Are you proposing changing how we place this diag package (furthermore Diagnostic framework ) in whole derby ?
> It may be better , because it will reduce size of derby.jar , and make derby more secure as you said.
>
> //However, I think it is better to have voting  , if doing it .....
>
>
> Best regards.
>
>
> /*
>
>         Tomohito Nakayama
>         tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>         tomohito@rose.zero.ad.jp
>         tmnk@apache.org
>
>         Naka
>         http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>
> */
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Daniel John Debrunner" <dj...@debrunners.com>
> To: "Derby Development" <de...@db.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 2:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-496) unit test 'org.apache.derbyTesting.unitTests.services.T_Diagnosticable' was failed
>
>
>> Tomohito Nakayama (JIRA) wrote:
>>>     [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-496?page=comments#action_12320680 ]
>>>
>>> Tomohito Nakayama commented on DERBY-496:
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Description of DERBY-496_2_addition.patch:
>>>
>>> Modification:
>>> * Adding DiagnosticUtil explicitly to derby.jar by modifying extraDBMSclasses.properties
>>>
>>> Testing:
>>> * unit/T_Diagnosticable passed.
>>
>> Not sure I agree with this change. Adding code into the product
>> (derby.jar) *only* in order to make a unit test pass seems a generally
>> incorrect approach.
>>
>> I think that maybe the Diagnosticable interface should be removed. I
>> think the functionality it is trying to provide is really the domain of
>> a Java debugger. The classes & mechanism were there to provide access to
>> non-public fields of classes for debugging, but its approach requires
>> security compromises to be made, by making such private or non-public
>> fields accessible.
>>
>> Dan.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date: 2005/08/30
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date: 2005/08/30
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date: 2005/08/30
>
> 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/86 - Release Date: 2005/08/31