You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@continuum.apache.org by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> on 2008/09/10 03:09:56 UTC
Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I
thought it might require some attention.
I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL Server
because of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (>
8000). I think this was previously shorter - is that right?
If so, should it be reduced by this small amount?
I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and
documented I'm happy with the release.
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>.
I looked at [1] and it seems a property is required to use an ORM file.
[1] http://www.jpox.org/docs/1_1/schematool.html
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> Great.
> But why it doesn't work and how to enable this ?
>
> Sorry I don't have a mssql server here ;-)
>
> --
> Olivier
>
> 2008/9/10 Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>:
> > The size (8000) is already define for mssql:
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-model/src/main/resources/package-mssql.orm
> >
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> arghhhh :-)))
> >>
> >> It's due to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1688.
> >>
> >> We can certainly reduce the size to 8000.
> >> I will reopen the issue.
> >> IMHO, we should control it and why not reduce the String if it's too
> long
> >>
> >> --
> >> Olivier
> >> PS : olamy complains about database vendor restriction ;-)
> >>
> >> 2008/9/10 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
> >> > Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I
> thought
> >> it
> >> > might require some attention.
> >> >
> >> > I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL Server
> >> because
> >> > of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (> 8000). I
> think
> >> > this was previously shorter - is that right?
> >> >
> >> > If so, should it be reduced by this small amount?
> >> >
> >> > I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and
> >> documented
> >> > I'm happy with the release.
> >> >
> >> > - Brett
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Brett Porter
> >> > brett@apache.org
> >> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
RE: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Posted by Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com>.
I think I did it right: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1878
Now I shall wait for a new version in /trunk, right?
Thanks in advance.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Venisse [mailto:emmanuel.venisse@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:57 PM
To: dev@continuum.apache.org
Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
1- checkout continuum2-
modify continuum-model/src/main/resources/package-mssql.orm to use 4000
3- rebuild Continuum
4- check it is ok with your sql server
5- attach your patch on a jira issue
Emmanuel
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The documentation says - 4000 [1]
>
> What to do?
>
> [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186939.aspx
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emmanuel Venisse [mailto:emmanuel.venisse@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:45 PM
> To: dev@continuum.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
>
> Hmm.
> 4000, 8000 are numbers sent by sql server.
> Maybe 8000 was a max number for all data types without check the filed
> type.
> On the second step (4000), you don't exceed the max, so it check the field
> type.
>
> Can you check in the sql server doc what is the max allowed for a
nvarchar?
>
> Emmanuel
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oliver,
> >
> > I did this and now I'm getting this message in continuum.log:
> >
> > 2008-09-11 08:46:55,135 [WrapperSimpleAppMain] ERROR JPOX.RDBMS - Error
> > thrown executing CREATE TABLE CHANGESET
> > (
> > CHANGESET_ID bigint NOT NULL,
> > AUTHOR nvarchar(255) NULL,
> > CHANGECOMMENT nvarchar(8000) NULL,
> > CHANGEDATE bigint NOT NULL,
> > ID nvarchar(255) NULL,
> > MODEL_ENCODING nvarchar(255) NULL,
> > CHANGES_SCMRESULT_ID_OID bigint NULL,
> > CHANGES_INTEGER_IDX int NULL
> > ) : The size (8000) given to the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the
> > maximum allowed (4000).
> > com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: The size (8000) given
to
> > the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the maximum allowed (4000).
> >
> > Why it was 8000 before, now it's 4000... Any ideas?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > Olivier Lamy
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 5:48 PM
> > To: dev@continuum.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
> >
> > Hi,
> > IMHO this cannot be included in the distribution by default as it's a
> > specific database vendor issue.
> > In the webapp, you will find the file in
> > WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/plexus/application.xml.
> > You will find something like : <!-- uncomment this property for mssql
> > support - CONTINUUM-697 -->
> > I'm sure this will help :-)
> > But sure this need to be added in the documenation.
> >
> > --
> > Olivier
> >
> > 2008/9/10 Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com>:
> > > Olivier,
> > >
> > > I have SQL Server and I have this problem (I reported it in users@).
> > >
> > > Please, let me know how to test it, I'm ready. I use the latest code
> from
> > > /trunk. So, as soon as you raise a flag, I will compile and try to run
> > with
> > > my SQL Server.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > > Olivier Lamy
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:37 AM
> > > To: dev@continuum.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
> > >
> > > Great.
> > > But why it doesn't work and how to enable this ?
> > >
> > > Sorry I don't have a mssql server here ;-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Olivier
> > >
> > > 2008/9/10 Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>:
> > >> The size (8000) is already define for mssql:
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-model/src/main/re
> > > sources/package-mssql.orm
> > >>
> > >> Emmanuel
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> arghhhh :-)))
> > >>>
> > >>> It's due to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1688.
> > >>>
> > >>> We can certainly reduce the size to 8000.
> > >>> I will reopen the issue.
> > >>> IMHO, we should control it and why not reduce the String if it's too
> > long
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Olivier
> > >>> PS : olamy complains about database vendor restriction ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>> 2008/9/10 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
> > >>> > Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I
> > > thought
> > >>> it
> > >>> > might require some attention.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL
> Server
> > >>> because
> > >>> > of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (> 8000). I
> > > think
> > >>> > this was previously shorter - is that right?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > If so, should it be reduced by this small amount?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and
> > >>> documented
> > >>> > I'm happy with the release.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > - Brett
> > >>> >
> > >>> > --
> > >>> > Brett Porter
> > >>> > brett@apache.org
> > >>> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> > signature
> > > database 3430 (20080910) __________
> > >
> > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> > >
> > > http://www.eset.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> > signature
> > > database 3430 (20080910) __________
> > >
> > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> > >
> > > http://www.eset.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> > signature
> > database 3432 (20080910) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> > signature
> > database 3434 (20080911) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> database 3434 (20080911) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3435 (20080911) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
Jimmy,
Patch applied.
Thanks !
--
Olivier
PS : please next time can you svn diff to generate the patch file.
(http://continuum.apache.org/development/guide-continuum-development.html#Creating_and_submitting_a_patch)
2008/9/11 Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>:
> 1- checkout continuum2-
> modify continuum-model/src/main/resources/package-mssql.orm to use 4000
> 3- rebuild Continuum
> 4- check it is ok with your sql server
> 5- attach your patch on a jira issue
>
> Emmanuel
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The documentation says - 4000 [1]
>>
>> What to do?
>>
>> [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186939.aspx
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Emmanuel Venisse [mailto:emmanuel.venisse@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:45 PM
>> To: dev@continuum.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
>>
>> Hmm.
>> 4000, 8000 are numbers sent by sql server.
>> Maybe 8000 was a max number for all data types without check the filed
>> type.
>> On the second step (4000), you don't exceed the max, so it check the field
>> type.
>>
>> Can you check in the sql server doc what is the max allowed for a nvarchar?
>>
>> Emmanuel
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Oliver,
>> >
>> > I did this and now I'm getting this message in continuum.log:
>> >
>> > 2008-09-11 08:46:55,135 [WrapperSimpleAppMain] ERROR JPOX.RDBMS - Error
>> > thrown executing CREATE TABLE CHANGESET
>> > (
>> > CHANGESET_ID bigint NOT NULL,
>> > AUTHOR nvarchar(255) NULL,
>> > CHANGECOMMENT nvarchar(8000) NULL,
>> > CHANGEDATE bigint NOT NULL,
>> > ID nvarchar(255) NULL,
>> > MODEL_ENCODING nvarchar(255) NULL,
>> > CHANGES_SCMRESULT_ID_OID bigint NULL,
>> > CHANGES_INTEGER_IDX int NULL
>> > ) : The size (8000) given to the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the
>> > maximum allowed (4000).
>> > com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: The size (8000) given to
>> > the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the maximum allowed (4000).
>> >
>> > Why it was 8000 before, now it's 4000... Any ideas?
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>> > Olivier Lamy
>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 5:48 PM
>> > To: dev@continuum.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > IMHO this cannot be included in the distribution by default as it's a
>> > specific database vendor issue.
>> > In the webapp, you will find the file in
>> > WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/plexus/application.xml.
>> > You will find something like : <!-- uncomment this property for mssql
>> > support - CONTINUUM-697 -->
>> > I'm sure this will help :-)
>> > But sure this need to be added in the documenation.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Olivier
>> >
>> > 2008/9/10 Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com>:
>> > > Olivier,
>> > >
>> > > I have SQL Server and I have this problem (I reported it in users@).
>> > >
>> > > Please, let me know how to test it, I'm ready. I use the latest code
>> from
>> > > /trunk. So, as soon as you raise a flag, I will compile and try to run
>> > with
>> > > my SQL Server.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks.
>> > >
>> > > Jim
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf
>> Of
>> > > Olivier Lamy
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:37 AM
>> > > To: dev@continuum.apache.org
>> > > Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
>> > >
>> > > Great.
>> > > But why it doesn't work and how to enable this ?
>> > >
>> > > Sorry I don't have a mssql server here ;-)
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Olivier
>> > >
>> > > 2008/9/10 Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>:
>> > >> The size (8000) is already define for mssql:
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-model/src/main/re
>> > > sources/package-mssql.orm
>> > >>
>> > >> Emmanuel
>> > >>
>> > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> arghhhh :-)))
>> > >>>
>> > >>> It's due to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1688.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> We can certainly reduce the size to 8000.
>> > >>> I will reopen the issue.
>> > >>> IMHO, we should control it and why not reduce the String if it's too
>> > long
>> > >>>
>> > >>> --
>> > >>> Olivier
>> > >>> PS : olamy complains about database vendor restriction ;-)
>> > >>>
>> > >>> 2008/9/10 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
>> > >>> > Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I
>> > > thought
>> > >>> it
>> > >>> > might require some attention.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL
>> Server
>> > >>> because
>> > >>> > of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (> 8000). I
>> > > think
>> > >>> > this was previously shorter - is that right?
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > If so, should it be reduced by this small amount?
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and
>> > >>> documented
>> > >>> > I'm happy with the release.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > - Brett
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > --
>> > >>> > Brett Porter
>> > >>> > brett@apache.org
>> > >>> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> > signature
>> > > database 3430 (20080910) __________
>> > >
>> > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>> > >
>> > > http://www.eset.com
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> > signature
>> > > database 3430 (20080910) __________
>> > >
>> > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>> > >
>> > > http://www.eset.com
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> > signature
>> > database 3432 (20080910) __________
>> >
>> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>> >
>> > http://www.eset.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> > signature
>> > database 3434 (20080911) __________
>> >
>> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>> >
>> > http://www.eset.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature
>> database 3434 (20080911) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>
Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>.
1- checkout continuum2-
modify continuum-model/src/main/resources/package-mssql.orm to use 4000
3- rebuild Continuum
4- check it is ok with your sql server
5- attach your patch on a jira issue
Emmanuel
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The documentation says - 4000 [1]
>
> What to do?
>
> [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186939.aspx
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emmanuel Venisse [mailto:emmanuel.venisse@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:45 PM
> To: dev@continuum.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
>
> Hmm.
> 4000, 8000 are numbers sent by sql server.
> Maybe 8000 was a max number for all data types without check the filed
> type.
> On the second step (4000), you don't exceed the max, so it check the field
> type.
>
> Can you check in the sql server doc what is the max allowed for a nvarchar?
>
> Emmanuel
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oliver,
> >
> > I did this and now I'm getting this message in continuum.log:
> >
> > 2008-09-11 08:46:55,135 [WrapperSimpleAppMain] ERROR JPOX.RDBMS - Error
> > thrown executing CREATE TABLE CHANGESET
> > (
> > CHANGESET_ID bigint NOT NULL,
> > AUTHOR nvarchar(255) NULL,
> > CHANGECOMMENT nvarchar(8000) NULL,
> > CHANGEDATE bigint NOT NULL,
> > ID nvarchar(255) NULL,
> > MODEL_ENCODING nvarchar(255) NULL,
> > CHANGES_SCMRESULT_ID_OID bigint NULL,
> > CHANGES_INTEGER_IDX int NULL
> > ) : The size (8000) given to the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the
> > maximum allowed (4000).
> > com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: The size (8000) given to
> > the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the maximum allowed (4000).
> >
> > Why it was 8000 before, now it's 4000... Any ideas?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > Olivier Lamy
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 5:48 PM
> > To: dev@continuum.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
> >
> > Hi,
> > IMHO this cannot be included in the distribution by default as it's a
> > specific database vendor issue.
> > In the webapp, you will find the file in
> > WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/plexus/application.xml.
> > You will find something like : <!-- uncomment this property for mssql
> > support - CONTINUUM-697 -->
> > I'm sure this will help :-)
> > But sure this need to be added in the documenation.
> >
> > --
> > Olivier
> >
> > 2008/9/10 Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com>:
> > > Olivier,
> > >
> > > I have SQL Server and I have this problem (I reported it in users@).
> > >
> > > Please, let me know how to test it, I'm ready. I use the latest code
> from
> > > /trunk. So, as soon as you raise a flag, I will compile and try to run
> > with
> > > my SQL Server.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > > Olivier Lamy
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:37 AM
> > > To: dev@continuum.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
> > >
> > > Great.
> > > But why it doesn't work and how to enable this ?
> > >
> > > Sorry I don't have a mssql server here ;-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Olivier
> > >
> > > 2008/9/10 Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>:
> > >> The size (8000) is already define for mssql:
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-model/src/main/re
> > > sources/package-mssql.orm
> > >>
> > >> Emmanuel
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> arghhhh :-)))
> > >>>
> > >>> It's due to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1688.
> > >>>
> > >>> We can certainly reduce the size to 8000.
> > >>> I will reopen the issue.
> > >>> IMHO, we should control it and why not reduce the String if it's too
> > long
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Olivier
> > >>> PS : olamy complains about database vendor restriction ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>> 2008/9/10 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
> > >>> > Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I
> > > thought
> > >>> it
> > >>> > might require some attention.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL
> Server
> > >>> because
> > >>> > of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (> 8000). I
> > > think
> > >>> > this was previously shorter - is that right?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > If so, should it be reduced by this small amount?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and
> > >>> documented
> > >>> > I'm happy with the release.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > - Brett
> > >>> >
> > >>> > --
> > >>> > Brett Porter
> > >>> > brett@apache.org
> > >>> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> > signature
> > > database 3430 (20080910) __________
> > >
> > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> > >
> > > http://www.eset.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> > signature
> > > database 3430 (20080910) __________
> > >
> > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> > >
> > > http://www.eset.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> > signature
> > database 3432 (20080910) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> > signature
> > database 3434 (20080911) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> database 3434 (20080911) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
RE: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Posted by Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com>.
The documentation says - 4000 [1]
What to do?
[1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186939.aspx
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Venisse [mailto:emmanuel.venisse@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:45 PM
To: dev@continuum.apache.org
Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Hmm.
4000, 8000 are numbers sent by sql server.
Maybe 8000 was a max number for all data types without check the filed type.
On the second step (4000), you don't exceed the max, so it check the field
type.
Can you check in the sql server doc what is the max allowed for a nvarchar?
Emmanuel
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oliver,
>
> I did this and now I'm getting this message in continuum.log:
>
> 2008-09-11 08:46:55,135 [WrapperSimpleAppMain] ERROR JPOX.RDBMS - Error
> thrown executing CREATE TABLE CHANGESET
> (
> CHANGESET_ID bigint NOT NULL,
> AUTHOR nvarchar(255) NULL,
> CHANGECOMMENT nvarchar(8000) NULL,
> CHANGEDATE bigint NOT NULL,
> ID nvarchar(255) NULL,
> MODEL_ENCODING nvarchar(255) NULL,
> CHANGES_SCMRESULT_ID_OID bigint NULL,
> CHANGES_INTEGER_IDX int NULL
> ) : The size (8000) given to the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the
> maximum allowed (4000).
> com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: The size (8000) given to
> the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the maximum allowed (4000).
>
> Why it was 8000 before, now it's 4000... Any ideas?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Olivier Lamy
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 5:48 PM
> To: dev@continuum.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
>
> Hi,
> IMHO this cannot be included in the distribution by default as it's a
> specific database vendor issue.
> In the webapp, you will find the file in
> WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/plexus/application.xml.
> You will find something like : <!-- uncomment this property for mssql
> support - CONTINUUM-697 -->
> I'm sure this will help :-)
> But sure this need to be added in the documenation.
>
> --
> Olivier
>
> 2008/9/10 Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com>:
> > Olivier,
> >
> > I have SQL Server and I have this problem (I reported it in users@).
> >
> > Please, let me know how to test it, I'm ready. I use the latest code
from
> > /trunk. So, as soon as you raise a flag, I will compile and try to run
> with
> > my SQL Server.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > Olivier Lamy
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:37 AM
> > To: dev@continuum.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
> >
> > Great.
> > But why it doesn't work and how to enable this ?
> >
> > Sorry I don't have a mssql server here ;-)
> >
> > --
> > Olivier
> >
> > 2008/9/10 Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>:
> >> The size (8000) is already define for mssql:
> >>
> >
>
>
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-model/src/main/re
> > sources/package-mssql.orm
> >>
> >> Emmanuel
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> arghhhh :-)))
> >>>
> >>> It's due to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1688.
> >>>
> >>> We can certainly reduce the size to 8000.
> >>> I will reopen the issue.
> >>> IMHO, we should control it and why not reduce the String if it's too
> long
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Olivier
> >>> PS : olamy complains about database vendor restriction ;-)
> >>>
> >>> 2008/9/10 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
> >>> > Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I
> > thought
> >>> it
> >>> > might require some attention.
> >>> >
> >>> > I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL Server
> >>> because
> >>> > of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (> 8000). I
> > think
> >>> > this was previously shorter - is that right?
> >>> >
> >>> > If so, should it be reduced by this small amount?
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and
> >>> documented
> >>> > I'm happy with the release.
> >>> >
> >>> > - Brett
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Brett Porter
> >>> > brett@apache.org
> >>> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> > database 3430 (20080910) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> > database 3430 (20080910) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> database 3432 (20080910) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> database 3434 (20080911) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3434 (20080911) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>.
Hmm.
4000, 8000 are numbers sent by sql server.
Maybe 8000 was a max number for all data types without check the filed type.
On the second step (4000), you don't exceed the max, so it check the field
type.
Can you check in the sql server doc what is the max allowed for a nvarchar?
Emmanuel
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oliver,
>
> I did this and now I'm getting this message in continuum.log:
>
> 2008-09-11 08:46:55,135 [WrapperSimpleAppMain] ERROR JPOX.RDBMS - Error
> thrown executing CREATE TABLE CHANGESET
> (
> CHANGESET_ID bigint NOT NULL,
> AUTHOR nvarchar(255) NULL,
> CHANGECOMMENT nvarchar(8000) NULL,
> CHANGEDATE bigint NOT NULL,
> ID nvarchar(255) NULL,
> MODEL_ENCODING nvarchar(255) NULL,
> CHANGES_SCMRESULT_ID_OID bigint NULL,
> CHANGES_INTEGER_IDX int NULL
> ) : The size (8000) given to the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the
> maximum allowed (4000).
> com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: The size (8000) given to
> the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the maximum allowed (4000).
>
> Why it was 8000 before, now it's 4000... Any ideas?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Olivier Lamy
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 5:48 PM
> To: dev@continuum.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
>
> Hi,
> IMHO this cannot be included in the distribution by default as it's a
> specific database vendor issue.
> In the webapp, you will find the file in
> WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/plexus/application.xml.
> You will find something like : <!-- uncomment this property for mssql
> support - CONTINUUM-697 -->
> I'm sure this will help :-)
> But sure this need to be added in the documenation.
>
> --
> Olivier
>
> 2008/9/10 Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com>:
> > Olivier,
> >
> > I have SQL Server and I have this problem (I reported it in users@).
> >
> > Please, let me know how to test it, I'm ready. I use the latest code from
> > /trunk. So, as soon as you raise a flag, I will compile and try to run
> with
> > my SQL Server.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > Olivier Lamy
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:37 AM
> > To: dev@continuum.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
> >
> > Great.
> > But why it doesn't work and how to enable this ?
> >
> > Sorry I don't have a mssql server here ;-)
> >
> > --
> > Olivier
> >
> > 2008/9/10 Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>:
> >> The size (8000) is already define for mssql:
> >>
> >
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-model/src/main/re
> > sources/package-mssql.orm
> >>
> >> Emmanuel
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> arghhhh :-)))
> >>>
> >>> It's due to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1688.
> >>>
> >>> We can certainly reduce the size to 8000.
> >>> I will reopen the issue.
> >>> IMHO, we should control it and why not reduce the String if it's too
> long
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Olivier
> >>> PS : olamy complains about database vendor restriction ;-)
> >>>
> >>> 2008/9/10 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
> >>> > Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I
> > thought
> >>> it
> >>> > might require some attention.
> >>> >
> >>> > I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL Server
> >>> because
> >>> > of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (> 8000). I
> > think
> >>> > this was previously shorter - is that right?
> >>> >
> >>> > If so, should it be reduced by this small amount?
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and
> >>> documented
> >>> > I'm happy with the release.
> >>> >
> >>> > - Brett
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Brett Porter
> >>> > brett@apache.org
> >>> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> > database 3430 (20080910) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> > database 3430 (20080910) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> database 3432 (20080910) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> database 3434 (20080911) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
RE: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Posted by Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com>.
Oliver,
I did this and now I'm getting this message in continuum.log:
2008-09-11 08:46:55,135 [WrapperSimpleAppMain] ERROR JPOX.RDBMS - Error
thrown executing CREATE TABLE CHANGESET
(
CHANGESET_ID bigint NOT NULL,
AUTHOR nvarchar(255) NULL,
CHANGECOMMENT nvarchar(8000) NULL,
CHANGEDATE bigint NOT NULL,
ID nvarchar(255) NULL,
MODEL_ENCODING nvarchar(255) NULL,
CHANGES_SCMRESULT_ID_OID bigint NULL,
CHANGES_INTEGER_IDX int NULL
) : The size (8000) given to the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the
maximum allowed (4000).
com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: The size (8000) given to
the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the maximum allowed (4000).
Why it was 8000 before, now it's 4000... Any ideas?
Thanks!
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Olivier Lamy
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 5:48 PM
To: dev@continuum.apache.org
Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Hi,
IMHO this cannot be included in the distribution by default as it's a
specific database vendor issue.
In the webapp, you will find the file in
WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/plexus/application.xml.
You will find something like : <!-- uncomment this property for mssql
support - CONTINUUM-697 -->
I'm sure this will help :-)
But sure this need to be added in the documenation.
--
Olivier
2008/9/10 Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com>:
> Olivier,
>
> I have SQL Server and I have this problem (I reported it in users@).
>
> Please, let me know how to test it, I'm ready. I use the latest code from
> /trunk. So, as soon as you raise a flag, I will compile and try to run
with
> my SQL Server.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Olivier Lamy
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:37 AM
> To: dev@continuum.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
>
> Great.
> But why it doesn't work and how to enable this ?
>
> Sorry I don't have a mssql server here ;-)
>
> --
> Olivier
>
> 2008/9/10 Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>:
>> The size (8000) is already define for mssql:
>>
>
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-model/src/main/re
> sources/package-mssql.orm
>>
>> Emmanuel
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> arghhhh :-)))
>>>
>>> It's due to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1688.
>>>
>>> We can certainly reduce the size to 8000.
>>> I will reopen the issue.
>>> IMHO, we should control it and why not reduce the String if it's too
long
>>>
>>> --
>>> Olivier
>>> PS : olamy complains about database vendor restriction ;-)
>>>
>>> 2008/9/10 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
>>> > Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I
> thought
>>> it
>>> > might require some attention.
>>> >
>>> > I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL Server
>>> because
>>> > of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (> 8000). I
> think
>>> > this was previously shorter - is that right?
>>> >
>>> > If so, should it be reduced by this small amount?
>>> >
>>> > I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and
>>> documented
>>> > I'm happy with the release.
>>> >
>>> > - Brett
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Brett Porter
>>> > brett@apache.org
>>> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
> database 3430 (20080910) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
> database 3430 (20080910) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3432 (20080910) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3434 (20080911) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
Hi,
IMHO this cannot be included in the distribution by default as it's a
specific database vendor issue.
In the webapp, you will find the file in
WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/plexus/application.xml.
You will find something like : <!-- uncomment this property for mssql
support - CONTINUUM-697 -->
I'm sure this will help :-)
But sure this need to be added in the documenation.
--
Olivier
2008/9/10 Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com>:
> Olivier,
>
> I have SQL Server and I have this problem (I reported it in users@).
>
> Please, let me know how to test it, I'm ready. I use the latest code from
> /trunk. So, as soon as you raise a flag, I will compile and try to run with
> my SQL Server.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Olivier Lamy
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:37 AM
> To: dev@continuum.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
>
> Great.
> But why it doesn't work and how to enable this ?
>
> Sorry I don't have a mssql server here ;-)
>
> --
> Olivier
>
> 2008/9/10 Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>:
>> The size (8000) is already define for mssql:
>>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-model/src/main/re
> sources/package-mssql.orm
>>
>> Emmanuel
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> arghhhh :-)))
>>>
>>> It's due to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1688.
>>>
>>> We can certainly reduce the size to 8000.
>>> I will reopen the issue.
>>> IMHO, we should control it and why not reduce the String if it's too long
>>>
>>> --
>>> Olivier
>>> PS : olamy complains about database vendor restriction ;-)
>>>
>>> 2008/9/10 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
>>> > Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I
> thought
>>> it
>>> > might require some attention.
>>> >
>>> > I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL Server
>>> because
>>> > of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (> 8000). I
> think
>>> > this was previously shorter - is that right?
>>> >
>>> > If so, should it be reduced by this small amount?
>>> >
>>> > I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and
>>> documented
>>> > I'm happy with the release.
>>> >
>>> > - Brett
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Brett Porter
>>> > brett@apache.org
>>> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 3430 (20080910) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 3430 (20080910) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
RE: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Posted by Jimmy Conway <ji...@gmail.com>.
Olivier,
I have SQL Server and I have this problem (I reported it in users@).
Please, let me know how to test it, I'm ready. I use the latest code from
/trunk. So, as soon as you raise a flag, I will compile and try to run with
my SQL Server.
Thanks.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: oliver.lamy@gmail.com [mailto:oliver.lamy@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Olivier Lamy
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:37 AM
To: dev@continuum.apache.org
Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Great.
But why it doesn't work and how to enable this ?
Sorry I don't have a mssql server here ;-)
--
Olivier
2008/9/10 Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>:
> The size (8000) is already define for mssql:
>
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-model/src/main/re
sources/package-mssql.orm
>
> Emmanuel
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> arghhhh :-)))
>>
>> It's due to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1688.
>>
>> We can certainly reduce the size to 8000.
>> I will reopen the issue.
>> IMHO, we should control it and why not reduce the String if it's too long
>>
>> --
>> Olivier
>> PS : olamy complains about database vendor restriction ;-)
>>
>> 2008/9/10 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
>> > Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I
thought
>> it
>> > might require some attention.
>> >
>> > I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL Server
>> because
>> > of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (> 8000). I
think
>> > this was previously shorter - is that right?
>> >
>> > If so, should it be reduced by this small amount?
>> >
>> > I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and
>> documented
>> > I'm happy with the release.
>> >
>> > - Brett
>> >
>> > --
>> > Brett Porter
>> > brett@apache.org
>> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>> >
>> >
>>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3430 (20080910) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3430 (20080910) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
Great.
But why it doesn't work and how to enable this ?
Sorry I don't have a mssql server here ;-)
--
Olivier
2008/9/10 Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>:
> The size (8000) is already define for mssql:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-model/src/main/resources/package-mssql.orm
>
> Emmanuel
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> arghhhh :-)))
>>
>> It's due to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1688.
>>
>> We can certainly reduce the size to 8000.
>> I will reopen the issue.
>> IMHO, we should control it and why not reduce the String if it's too long
>>
>> --
>> Olivier
>> PS : olamy complains about database vendor restriction ;-)
>>
>> 2008/9/10 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
>> > Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I thought
>> it
>> > might require some attention.
>> >
>> > I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL Server
>> because
>> > of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (> 8000). I think
>> > this was previously shorter - is that right?
>> >
>> > If so, should it be reduced by this small amount?
>> >
>> > I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and
>> documented
>> > I'm happy with the release.
>> >
>> > - Brett
>> >
>> > --
>> > Brett Porter
>> > brett@apache.org
>> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>.
The size (8000) is already define for mssql:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-model/src/main/resources/package-mssql.orm
Emmanuel
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> arghhhh :-)))
>
> It's due to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1688.
>
> We can certainly reduce the size to 8000.
> I will reopen the issue.
> IMHO, we should control it and why not reduce the String if it's too long
>
> --
> Olivier
> PS : olamy complains about database vendor restriction ;-)
>
> 2008/9/10 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
> > Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I thought
> it
> > might require some attention.
> >
> > I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL Server
> because
> > of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (> 8000). I think
> > this was previously shorter - is that right?
> >
> > If so, should it be reduced by this small amount?
> >
> > I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and
> documented
> > I'm happy with the release.
> >
> > - Brett
> >
> > --
> > Brett Porter
> > brett@apache.org
> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
> >
> >
>
Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
arghhhh :-)))
It's due to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1688.
We can certainly reduce the size to 8000.
I will reopen the issue.
IMHO, we should control it and why not reduce the String if it's too long
--
Olivier
PS : olamy complains about database vendor restriction ;-)
2008/9/10 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
> Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I thought it
> might require some attention.
>
> I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL Server because
> of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (> 8000). I think
> this was previously shorter - is that right?
>
> If so, should it be reduced by this small amount?
>
> I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and documented
> I'm happy with the release.
>
> - Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>