Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [dtp-dev] Question Concerning Statically vs. Dynamically Defined DB Meta-data

I misunderstood what was meant by "if the vendor/version is not defined".  This does sound reasonable to me.

Larry Dunnell
RAD Data Tools, DB2 Tooling,  Eclipse WTP Project and Eclipse DTP Project
IBM DB2 Information Management Software

Sent by: dtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

01/08/2007 08:05 AM

Please respond to
DTP development mailing list <dtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

DTP development mailing list <dtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Re: [dtp-dev] Question Concerning Statically vs. Dynamically        Defined        DB Meta-data

Hey Larry,

> For informational purposes, this is how version information is handled in
> There is an extension point (org.eclipse.wst.rdb.core.
> databaseRecognition).  This extension point can be used to provide a
> class that returns a boolean indicating whether the version provided
> in the DatabaseDefinition is the same as the version on the server.
> The connection wizard uses this facility to determine if the
> versions are the same, if they are not, then a warning dialog is
> displayed and the user can determine whether or not they want to
> connect anyway.   The user is given the option to connect anyway, so
> that if a new version or service pack for the database is released
> that the databaseRecognizer does not recognize, the user can still
> ( Note that there are no databaseRecognizers implemented in WTP so
> the warning dialog is never displayed in WTP.)
> I would argue against your comment in the defect ("
> I would add that if the vendor/version is not defined, the
> ConnectionInfoImpl should fallback to use the generic JDBC
> dbdefinition and log this to both syserr (so the developer notices
> this in his debug env) and the Eclipse log.
> ")  as this will block the user from utilizing vendor specific
> features such as custom catalog loaders and databaseDefinitions. The
> user needs to be allowed to decide which databaseDefinition to use
> in this case.

I understand your concern.  However, I don't think it is all that bad.  If
the vendor/version is not defined or does not match anything registered
with the framework, the user cannot use the connection at all.  I think it
would be better to have the connection be usable, even in a limited
capacity, than not usable at all.  That said, I think it should be amended
to use the databaseRecognizer extension prior to moving along to the
generic support.

Sound reasonable?


dtp-dev mailing list

Back to the top