Re: Issues with unique object IDs in persistence

From:

Lew <noone@lewscanon.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Sun, 17 May 2009 20:30:30 -0400

Message-ID:

<guqa77$9e0$1@news.albasani.net>

Seamus MacRae wrote:

My idea was basically to use serialized Java objects, probably in
individual files. Likely a problem could be solved, if not by fixing,
then by deleting a particular such file and the app recreating it.

Arne Vajh?j wrote:

A database problem could be solved using the same technique - deleting
the directory and recreate the data.

Seamus MacRae ranted:

A database, on the other hand, typically takes the form of a B-tree
represented who-knows-how and living on its own dedicated disk
partition. It won't be mountable as NTFS or VFAT or whatever, and
probably won't even be visible in Explorer. The installer has to do
the semi-dangerous job of repartitioning the customer's hard drive --
hope they keep backups.

Arne Vajh?j nobly attempted:

????

That is not how Derby works.

Indeed there are very few databases that work like this (today).

We tried this information on "Seamus" MacPaul already. He just refused the
evidence and the reasoning:

... your word for it and some web site's isn't proof that it doesn't
[take a larger footprint].

Never mind that the web site was Derby's itself. Apparently he doesn't let
the facts get in the way of his preconceptions.

I applaud the attempt nonetheless.

--
Lew
So, if she weighs the same as a duck, then she's made of wood.
And therefore ... A WITCH! Burn her!