Skip to main content

What do you think of the inclusion of Java DB in JDK 6?

I think it's a good idea
42% (358 votes)
I think it's a bad idea
42% (354 votes)
I don't really care either way
16% (134 votes)
Total votes: 846

Comments

Slippery slope...

That's a good point, I totally agree.

Very very bad idea

because: - bloating - getting another updatecycle (DB-Update) into the jdk - getting towards an unflexible jdk - "i want to decide which db i use"

Bad idea

Why not keep it in a damn separate project? I hope JDK will not bloat like the .NET Framework SDK. Someone here said why not include it in the JRE; this is even worse.

Good Decision

Couldn't have asked for more. DB integration is good things for small apps with local complex data storage problems

-1 Bad idea

No autoincrement, no digg

Bad Idea

How big the JDK will become ?

good idea

I think it's a good idea. This step helps developers comforting theselves with Java DB. Eventually, Java DB must of course become a part of the JRE. But why, you may ask. Well, it is true that there may be many alternatives. Possibly even better ones. In the end that does not matter. The important point is that if Java DB is part of the jre it makes life of developers easier as one can be sure to have a database system at ones fingertips. No searching for and evaluating products. Just getting things done. Again, I think it's a good idea. regards Thomas

good idea

So choosing the best solution for a problem is a bad thing? Interesting idea...

Let's hope I'll never have the displeasure of having to maintain code created by you or having to work in an environment influenced by you.

good idea

So becoming personal is the way to go...? Great. Besides that, a quote of the part of my message you are referring to might have helped, too. ...anyway... The only point I was making is that Java DB is a solid choice, if people cannot or don't want to evaluate all possible rdbms. What's wrong with this?

good idea

No searching for and evaluating products.

That says just everything...

good idea

Sorry for asking, but what exactly does that say? What is so wrong in taking the tool that IS available and gets things done instead of pondering what else one could use for a certain task? While it is certainly is desireable to keep the jre as small as possible, what is the benefit of having 10 Java apps bringing a database engine with them?

A Good Thing

Of course this is a good thing. Any developer can now easily jump right into developing their database applications without the headache of installing and configuring it first. This was a great idea! Keep up the good work!

Is it that useful?

OK, so it's in the JDK but not the JRE. So the only use is that developers don't have to download it separately to use it. They still have to bundle the appropriate JARs with their application because the end users, who likely only have JREs wont have it. So what does it give us? The total download size would be the same if we use Derby anyawy - either increase the JDK size by X MB or download X MB separately from apache.org. The only thing I suppose is convenience. Convenience of not having to download an extra binary (i.e. clicking on an extra link). But considering how many things I download anyway for Java development - JDK, Eclipse, various plugins for Eclipse, Maven, etc. what's one more download? So in conclusion I don't care.

if the idea was to make development easier ...

I would have stuffed it into NetBeans, or the NetBeans/JDK bundle, or something like that. . But the bundled database doesn't seem very useful on its own in the JDK.

The Mustang spec lead may want to consider the advantages of committing himself to keeping the JDK *Reference Implementation* free from APIs and libraries that are outside JCP's specification process, and having a separate product for Sun's own proprietary extensions to the JDK RI.

how developers get paid

Seeing as so many (90%?) of developers make their money working on what is basically front-end to a database.. the only questions is: why wasn't this in JDK1.1?

how developers get paid

Seeing as so many (99%?) of people accessing databases access databases created and maintained for them by others, databases moreoever which are far larger than a small embedded database could ever replace, the only question is: why the heck bother with nonsense like this?

It doesn't solve any problem, it adds a lot of crud to the distribution that almost noone will ever look at. Only people it's useful for may be marketeers who can now claim that Java has an embedded database just like .NET can access MS Access files natively.

May be a good thing...

I voted, that, "I don't care". I and don't really, but I did want to layout some things I was thinking.

The only real downside to shipping a DB with the JDK is that it will make it bigger. That's it. That's the only downside. Depending on how big it is, it may not even really matter.

On the possitive side, you would have a capable database shipped with the JDK which every demo app out there could code against. I think that would be nice. If I download the latest version of Spring or Wicket or Grails, it would have demo apps that run against the built-in JDK DB instead of bundling hypersonic or derby. If every JDK had a DB, maybe sophisticated build tools could count on that and fire up a local database that would speed-up builds though a DB cache, or collect stats, or any number of things.

Anyway, I'm not saying that we must have a DB in the JDK, but it it were included, it *would* be well utilized.

-Bryan

There are enough free choices already

Personally, I'd prefer to use the DB of my choice. Free databases are pretty easy to come by these days and I just don't see the logic in adding a DB to the JDK.

Only in the JDK please

Last thing we need is further JRE bloat. Having it in the JDK alone to let developers hack together DB-based apps is fine.

Sounds familiar...

I think that's the wrong way. Besides of the JRE/download size, I think it's really not necessary. Not only do I think that the "market share" of the java db is really small, it all reminds me of the disucssions (and trials) about Media Player & Internet Explorer. Let the developers decide...

Sounds familiar...

It's not going in the JRE. It's only going in the JDK. Were is the harm?

Sounds familiar...

if it;s not gonna included in JRE than whts the meaning anyway ;). (i dnt know/care whether it's gonna b in JRE or not)

Sounds familiar...

indeed. If it's going to be in the JDK but not the JRE it's useless (well, even more useless than when included in both) as noone would be able to distribute applications using it to end users without distributing core JDK jars (which under the existing license is not allowed).

Sounds familiar...

What is sound familar?