Derby
  1. Derby
  2. DERBY-4637

The Developer's Guide implies that, for in-memory database names, Derby does not resolve relative and absolute paths to the same in-memory database

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 10.6.1.0
    • Fix Version/s: 10.8.2.2, 10.9.1.0
    • Component/s: Documentation
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      The Developer's Guide says in the section titled 'Conventions for specifying the database path':

      "When accessing databases from the file system (instead of from memory, the classpath, or a jar file), any path that is not absolute is interpreted as relative to the system directory."

      A casual reader might interpret this to mean that the system directory is not used to resolve paths in the names of in-memory databases. But, in fact, Derby does use the system directory to qualify relative paths in the names of in-memory databases.

      For instance, if the system directory is /Users/blah/derby/dummy, then Derby treats the following urls as identifiers for the same in-memory database:

      jdbc:derby:memory:db
      jdbc:derby:memory:/Users/blah/derby/dummy/db

      Similarly, Derby treats the following urls as names for the same in-memory database:

      jdbc:derby:memory:/foo/bar/db
      jdbc:derby:memory:/foo/bar/../bar/db

      The Developer's Guide could use a section on how to resolve in-memory database names.

      1. DERBY-4637.zip
        6 kB
        Kim Haase
      2. DERBY-4637.stat
        0.1 kB
        Kim Haase
      3. DERBY-4637.diff
        2 kB
        Kim Haase

        Activity

        Hide
        Kim Haase added a comment -

        Issue was resolved several months ago, so closing.

        Show
        Kim Haase added a comment - Issue was resolved several months ago, so closing.
        Hide
        Kim Haase added a comment -

        Thanks very much, Rick.

        Committed patch DERBY-4637.diff to documentation trunk at revision 1165772.
        Merged to 10.8 doc branch at revision 1165780.

        Show
        Kim Haase added a comment - Thanks very much, Rick. Committed patch DERBY-4637 .diff to documentation trunk at revision 1165772. Merged to 10.8 doc branch at revision 1165780.
        Hide
        Rick Hillegas added a comment -

        Thanks, Kim. Looks good to me. +1

        Show
        Rick Hillegas added a comment - Thanks, Kim. Looks good to me. +1
        Hide
        Kim Haase added a comment -

        Attaching DERBY-4637.diff, DERBY-4637.stat, and DERBY-4637.zip, with changes to the following files:

        M src/devguide/cdevdvlp40350.dita
        M src/devguide/cdevdvlpinmemdb.dita

        I removed the reference to in-memory databases from cdevdvlp40350.dita, since the subject hasn't been mentioned yet at all, and then added a section on referring to in-memory databases to cdevdvlpinmemdb.dita, with a cross-reference back to cdevdvlp40350.dita for more information on paths.

        I also got rid of a dangling participle in cdevdvlp40350.dita.

        Please let me know what further changes would be helpful.

        Show
        Kim Haase added a comment - Attaching DERBY-4637 .diff, DERBY-4637 .stat, and DERBY-4637 .zip, with changes to the following files: M src/devguide/cdevdvlp40350.dita M src/devguide/cdevdvlpinmemdb.dita I removed the reference to in-memory databases from cdevdvlp40350.dita, since the subject hasn't been mentioned yet at all, and then added a section on referring to in-memory databases to cdevdvlpinmemdb.dita, with a cross-reference back to cdevdvlp40350.dita for more information on paths. I also got rid of a dangling participle in cdevdvlp40350.dita. Please let me know what further changes would be helpful.
        Hide
        Rick Hillegas added a comment -

        Hi Kristian,

        It's probably sufficient just to rewrite that sentence so that it is clear that the same name resolution rules apply regardless of whether the database is on disk or in memory. Thanks.

        Show
        Rick Hillegas added a comment - Hi Kristian, It's probably sufficient just to rewrite that sentence so that it is clear that the same name resolution rules apply regardless of whether the database is on disk or in memory. Thanks.
        Hide
        Kristian Waagan added a comment -

        Would it suffice to rewrite the sentence referred to above, or do we need to write a new section for in-memory database names?

        Show
        Kristian Waagan added a comment - Would it suffice to rewrite the sentence referred to above, or do we need to write a new section for in-memory database names?

          People

          • Assignee:
            Kim Haase
            Reporter:
            Rick Hillegas
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development