I am a little confused by the JOOQ product compatibility with AWS RDS Aurora MySQL.
Perhaps this purely a licence restriction rather than technical one.
This page https://www.jooq.org/legal/licensing#databases shows RDS Aurora support in Professional Edition & Enterprise Edition. The "License Terms" section on https://www.jooq.org/download/ show that the open source version does not allow for commercial databases and only allows for open source ones.
My question is:
Can anyone confirm that this is actually a licence usage terms restriction, rather than a technical one with the open source code, e.g. it's not that when using the professional edition one actually would run a different flavour of JOOQ, e.g. a different binary with more features?
Purely for bonus points & general interest:
We can see in this commit https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/commit/863ade3b3c7a004d477d54193ac5104435b9835b and in this github issue https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/5196 dating back to 2018 support was added to the open source project.
Given AWS generally refer to the Aurora product as being compatible with mysql 5.7, why would JOOQ need to do anything at all to "support" this, shouldn't it "just" look like using MySQL 5.7 from the perspective of a client application? https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/faqs/ Perhaps the critical word below is "most".
most of the code, applications, drivers and tools you already use today with your MySQL databases can be used with Aurora with little or no change. The Amazon Aurora database engine is designed to be wire-compatible with MySQL 5.6 and 5.7 using the InnoDB storage engine.
Lukas from the jOOQ team here.
The "License Terms" section on https://www.jooq.org/download/ show that the open source version does not allow for commercial databases and only allows for open source ones.
Perhaps that section title "License Terms" is misleading for this particular purpose (which we'll review). There's no way for the jOOQ Open Source Edition to not allow you to use the jOOQ Open Source Edition with any database product of your choice. The ASL 2.0, which is the license governing the jOOQ Open Source Edition, does not allow for any such "amendments" or restrictions on top of the ASL 2.0 - otherwise it would no longer be the ASL 2.0 license.
What this website section means is that the jOOQ Open Source Edition does not technically support any other databases than the ones listed there, nor do we offer any support for such an integration as a vendor, but if you can get it to work (through patching, integration testing, etc.) you're free to do so.
Can anyone confirm that this is actually a licence usage terms restriction, rather than a technical one with the open source code, e.g. it's not that when using the professional edition one actually would run a different flavour of JOOQ, e.g. a different binary with more features?
There is no "license usage term restriction" whatsoever in the jOOQ Open Source Edition, apart from the ASL 2.0
Given AWS generally refer to the Aurora product as being compatible with mysql 5.7, why would JOOQ need to do anything at all to "support" this, shouldn't it "just" look like using MySQL 5.7 from the perspective of a client application?
We as a vendor will give you warranties and commercial support, as well as maintenance on your Aurora MySQL integration when you use jOOQ's Aurora MySQL support.
In case you do run into one of those cases where Aurora MySQL doesn't work exactly like vanilla MySQL, we'll fix (or may already have fixed) the issue for Aurora MySQL only, not affecting other MySQL users.
Related
Good afternoon,
Anyone know if sql express 2008 version, the option of using TDE (Transparent Data Encryption).
I tried using it for testing and the server gave me the following error.
"The transparent data encryption is not available in the publication of this instance of SQL Server. See Books Online for more details on feature support in different editions of SQL Server."
Thanks and a greeting.
TDE is available only in Enterprise editions AFAIK.
As mentioned, Microsoft supports TDE only in Enterprise Edition. However, there are several third party products that will provide TDE to all editions and verions of SQL Server, including SQL Express. One of those products being ours: Encryptionizer for SQL Server. Another one that I am aware of is DBDefence. Internally they work very differently though: Encryptionizer sits between SQL Server and the Operating System, while DBDefence injects itself into the SQL process running in memory to change the behavior of the process.
I wonder what the difference is between Cloudant and CouchOne.
Good question. My quick answer:
CouchOne is lead by Damien Katz, the originator of the CouchDB Apache project. CouchOne is now focused squarely on scaling couchdb down to run efficiently on mobile devices. The goal is to leverage the p2p replication model of CouchDB to solve the sync problem on mobile.
Cloudant is founded by 3 PhD's from MIT with big-data backgrounds. Cloudant is focused squarely on scaling CouchDB up (see the open-source bigcouch project) to power data-intensive applications in the cloud. Cloudant provides scalable data as a service for high-rate, large volume online transaction processing, search and analytics.
Thus there is a real opportunity to see the CouchDB API flourish at two tremendously different scales to provide the application developer a single platform that runs on the mobile and in the cloud, with seamless data (and CouchApp!) migration between the two.
Update (2015)
Currently, according to Professional Services on CouchDB Wiki, there are 3 CouchDB hosting services:
Smileupps
Cloudant
Iris Couch
Since this question is specifically about Cloudant and CouchOne, here's more info:
Cloudant was bought by IBM in March 2014 - see IBM Completes Acquisition of Cloudant - and continues to operate.
According to Wikipedia: "Cloudant is an IBM software product, which is primarily delivered as a cloud-based service. Cloudant is an open source non-relational, distributed database service of the same name that requires zero-configuration. Cloudant is based on the Apache-backed CouchDB project and the open source BigCouch project." (source)
CouchOne is not available any more. As of June 2015 http://www.couchone.com/ gives 404 Not Found (since at least March 2013), #couchone on Twitter had last tweets in May 2011 and says that "CouchOne is now Couchbase, Inc." - but please note that contrary to some marketing material the Couchbase Server is not a continuation of CouchDB - it has a different code base, licensing, philosophy, features, data and protocols.
For more info on this and an explanation of differences between things like CouchDB, CouchIO, CouchOne, Couchbase, Couchbase Server, Couchbase Mobile, Couchbase Lite, CouchApps, BigCouch, Touchbase, Membase, Memcached, MemcacheDB etc.- see the answer that I wrote to: Difference between CouchDB and Couchbase in March 2013.
Original answer (2011)
It's a late answer to a somewhat dated thread but it's a number one Google hit for "couchone and cloudant" so here's a little update.
Few days ago CouchOne announced a merge with Membase to form a new company called Couchbase. Membase is known eg. for the database behind FarmVille by Zynga so it's a mature large scale NoSQL solution and Couchbase is planned to be a technology scaling from smartphones to large data center clusters.
Cloudand on the other hand started from large scale (see Mike's comments) and while you can get a large scale solutions for more than $1000/mo, you can also get a 2GB database for $15/mo and even a smaller one for free.
There is a difference in managing the databases, CouchOne uses just Futon right now and Cloudant has a custom web interface where you can set up shared databases, virtual hosts, custom domains etc.
All in all Cloudant seems to be more mature right now and we have to see how the Couchbase develops.
The bottom line is that both CouchOne and Cloudant can be tried for free so it's probably best to try out both and see what best suits your needs.
I would also note that CouchOne/CouchBase supports the GeoCouch extensions, while Cloudant does not. Important if you want to do bounding box queries.
What is the internal storage mechanism of WSS 3.0? Does it need SQL Server 2005 or can we use SQL Server 2005 Embedded Edition automatically installed with WSS 3.0? If yes then what is the limit of the content for a web application if it uses SSEE?
Let say I have created a web application in WSS 3.0 then how much data can be stored within it? How much data can I store for lists and document libraries? How many folders can I create inside a document library?
This is quite a common misconception - the paranoid amongst us may even thing that MSFT doesn't do much to clear this up as it pushes people along the route of buying SQL Server...
Tin hats away though ...
When you use the "Basic" install option during MOSS 2007 installation it does install and use SQL Server 2005 Express Edition (see Stand alone installation) and you do have a 4GB limit.
When you use the "Basic" install option during WSS 3.0 installation it DOES NOT use SQL Express, it uses something called Windows Internal Database and it DOES NOT have a 4GB size limit.
Its hard to find an authoritative reference on this (tin hats again) but this one by Mark Walsh and marked as correct by an MSFT moderator is about the best I can find.
Beside the database limitation there are some other SharePoint limitations and advises regarding the numbers of items per library or numbers of site collections per web application or content database.
MOSS Limitations 1
MOSS Limitations 2
It uses SQL Server 2005 Express Edition which I believe has a limit of 4GB per database. You could create multiple content databases for separate site collections but there may also be some performance limitations in the express edition.
Here is a page that compares editions:
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/compare-features.aspx
Josh pretty much has the answer. As for the "how many documents and lists and whatevers" question, the answer is "as many as you want so long as you don't slam into the 4gb limit."
I'd also note that if you start getting near that 4gb limit, you can always upgrade to full-blown SQL server with very minimal pain so it is a decent place to start.
The real place it falls down is management tools (ie--backup), but you can script that from the command line pretty effectively.
When installing SharePoint 2007 you can specify the SQL Server database to connect to yourself. If you don't do this SharePoint will use the Windows Internal Database, otherwise known as WYukon. This database is not the same as SQL Express and there's two key differences. (1) WYukon isn't artificially limited in database size or performance. (2) You can't connect to a WYukon database with a regular database connection string.
Here's a link with some (minimal) information about WYukon.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=30A7365B-91C5-4C28-85A5-9AB861168C0E
Regards,
Paul
Is there any Oracle database ( around version 10 ) front end that we can use in Linux, free or open source?
I am currently using Ubuntu 8.10 and if possible I just want it to need the thin JDBC to connect to oracle and not the whole (huge) client of oracle installed in it.
I use Oracle SQL Developer which is similar to TOAD (which is not free). SQL Developer is free and supported by Oracle. Make sure you get the latest version as they're improving it all the time. It has a nice graphical UI and support for editing PL/SQL stored procedures. I think there are even plugins for other databases (like MySQL).
Its a Java application and there is a Linux distribution, though I use the Windows version. It does not require an Oracle client, though it does support one, like the Oracle Instant Client, should you have it installed.
seems like http://tora.sourceforge.net/ is the opensource version of toad
also there is http://oss.oracle.com/sqldeveloper.html
Pretty much any JDBC tool will be able to talk compentantly to Oracle.
I've used SQuirrel SQL Client, SQL Workbench, DbVisualizer (free edition).
There's even plug-ins for jEdit that can talk to a database.
When I'm in Windows, I use the excellent MicroOLAP Database Designer for PostgreSQL, but its not open source or multiplataform.
Do you know or can recommend me an alternative to this software, that I can use in Linux?
EDIT: Just to clarify, I don't want to use wine to emulate MicroOlap for PostgreSQL, it doesn't work too well, I would prefer something native, or Java based.
pgDesigner is a database design application for PostgreSQL, for
versions 7.x and 8.x.
pgDesigner provides the following features:
Complete datamodel editor
Support for PostgreSQL objects: tables, views, relations,
tablespaces, procedures, triggers, types, domains and sequences
Automatic updating of relations between tables.
Wizard for the construction of views.
Report generator, with statistics
Printing the diagram
SQL export
Creation of the database
Management of the project on a diagram chart
I stopped using software database designers years ago, and reverted back to the trusty pen and paper which is just easier to use in my experience.
To answer your question though, take a look at dbDesigner4 which is what I used to use. I remember it being fantastic. It's open source and multiplatform.
How about Clay? It's a plugin for Eclipse, and the free version supports generating Postgres DDL.
I really like dbWrench. It's commercial as well, but not expensive and is Java based. It can reverse engineer a database and generates pretty good HTML based documentation.
http://www.dbwrench.com/
This is a crappy answer for which I should be taken out and shot, but you can search over nearly all PostgreSQL related projects at PgFoundry. I don't know from GUI database design tools, but I'd imagine you should be able to find something there, if it exists.