<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"> <pre wrap=""><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">I do not see any improvement with having to bundle hsqldb vs. having to bundle firebird.</pre></blockquote></pre> If Firebird becomes the default database in Base, it will not be a matter of bundling either HSQLDB or Firebird, but of bundling both ! Otherwise what about existing legacy databases ? <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">The main motivation for the switch was getting rid of java</pre> </blockquote> AFAIK the main issue in using a HSQLDB database embedded in the .odb file is that, when LO crashes, the chance is big that the database is destroyed: the recovery process does not recover that part of the file. Will it still be the case with an embedded Firebird database ? In that context I invite interested people to read a.o. the thread published last monday on <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=62419">http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=62419</a> by DACM. An extract: <blockquote type="cite">Unfortunately, the devs remain preoccupied with the embedded database concept based on a default database engine. They're literally wasting the summer trying to shoe-horn Firebird into Base as the default in order to achieve yet another, single-file database (.odb), much like we have today with HSQLDB. They don't seem to understand or acknowledge that the user community has shelved the concept because it is inherently unreliable (<a href="http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10things/10-reasons-to-split-an-access-database/1119" class="postlink">as confirmed by Microsoft</a>: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10things/10-reasons-to-split-an-access-database/1119">http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10things/10-reasons-to-split-an-access-database/1119</a>). We've also moved beyond the idea of a default database with Base. This actually free's the devs to eliminate internal Java dependencies from the entire LibO/AOO code-base, perhaps with the exception of the hooks necessary for external JDBC support.</blockquote> Have users been enough involved in the debate so far ? Thanks for your feedbacks. Jean-Pierre On 24/06/2013 16:19, Andrzej J. R. Hunt wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:51C85574.4000202@ahunt.org" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On 24/06/13 12:25, David Tardon wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">If this is the current option, could we please consider the possibility to drop the whole idea and just stay with hsqldb? With my distro hat on, I do not see any improvement with having to bundle hsqldb vs. having to bundle firebird. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">The main motivation for the switch was (another step in) getting rid of java (at least for me personally it is, and AFAICS for most other people too), and not the bundling of a db. And there appear to be solutions to allow reliable use of external firebird with various ICUs (see mails from Lionel/Michael) -- so either way firebird still makes the most sense to me. Cheers, Andrzej _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org">LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice</a> </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>