You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by thomas <th...@stray.net> on 2005/02/13 13:29:17 UTC
SQL identifier lengths
Hi,
i tried to use Derby as backend for the DaisyWiki CMS, because i'd like to
get an solution. Currently Daisy only supports MySQL, with PostgreSQL being
in the works. The main problem i ran into was the very constrained length
of SQL identifiers in Derby.
I found this issue on the ToDo-List
(<http://incubator.apache.org/derby/DerbyToDo.html>, Increased SQL
identifier lengths) and also a discussion-thread which seemed to come to a
consensus that support for longer SQL identifier should be added, since it
wouldn't break backward-compatibility with DB2 but improve support for the
SQL-standard
<http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200409.mbox/%3c8D5A122E-09AB-11D9-8965-000A95782782@apache.org%3e>.
Although this sounds quite promising to me, it seems like there hasn't been
a vote taken until now and nobody is working on it. Is this correct? Or
are there any estimates possible on when a patch will be available? Or how
much work it would be to develop that patch oneself - given some experience
with java but none with Derby or other java-SQL-databases?
ciao
thomas thomas@stray.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
now i found that the world is round and of course it rains every day b.g.
Re: SQL identifier lengths
Posted by thomas lörtsch <th...@stray.net>.
Am 15.02.2005 um 21:55 schrieb Daniel John Debrunner:
> thomas wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> i tried to use Derby as backend for the DaisyWiki CMS, because i'd
>> like
>> to get an solution. Currently Daisy only supports MySQL, with
>> PostgreSQL
>> being in the works. The main problem i ran into was the very
>> constrained
>> length of SQL identifiers in Derby.
>>
>> I found this issue on the ToDo-List
>> (<http://incubator.apache.org/derby/DerbyToDo.html>, Increased SQL
>> identifier lengths) and also a discussion-thread which seemed to come
>> to
>> a consensus that support for longer SQL identifier should be added,
>> since it wouldn't break backward-compatibility with DB2 but improve
>> support for the SQL-standard
>> <http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/
>> 200409.mbox/%3c8D5A122E-09AB-11D9-8965-000A95782782@apache.org%3e>.
>>
>>
>> Although this sounds quite promising to me, it seems like there hasn't
>> been a vote taken until now and nobody is working on it. Is this
>> correct? Or are there any estimates possible on when a patch will be
>> available? Or how much work it would be to develop that patch oneself
>> -
>> given some experience with java but none with Derby or other
>> java-SQL-databases?
>
> The patch already exists, but it doesn't pass the tests cleanly. Some
> work is needed to ensure the test outputs are correct and re-issue the
> patch with the changes to the tests. The orignal patch is here:
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=derby-
> dev@db.apache.org&msgNo=1377
>
> and my latest comments on it.
>
> http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200502.mbox/
> %3c42026E14.8000007@debrunners.com%3e
>
> Dan.
so there's hope :-)
thanks for the answer, and the great work!
ciao
thomas
.
mailto:thomas@stray.net
http://stray.net
Re: SQL identifier lengths
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
thomas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i tried to use Derby as backend for the DaisyWiki CMS, because i'd like
> to get an solution. Currently Daisy only supports MySQL, with PostgreSQL
> being in the works. The main problem i ran into was the very constrained
> length of SQL identifiers in Derby.
>
> I found this issue on the ToDo-List
> (<http://incubator.apache.org/derby/DerbyToDo.html>, Increased SQL
> identifier lengths) and also a discussion-thread which seemed to come to
> a consensus that support for longer SQL identifier should be added,
> since it wouldn't break backward-compatibility with DB2 but improve
> support for the SQL-standard
> <http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200409.mbox/%3c8D5A122E-09AB-11D9-8965-000A95782782@apache.org%3e>.
>
>
> Although this sounds quite promising to me, it seems like there hasn't
> been a vote taken until now and nobody is working on it. Is this
> correct? Or are there any estimates possible on when a patch will be
> available? Or how much work it would be to develop that patch oneself -
> given some experience with java but none with Derby or other
> java-SQL-databases?
The patch already exists, but it doesn't pass the tests cleanly. Some
work is needed to ensure the test outputs are correct and re-issue the
patch with the changes to the tests. The orignal patch is here:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=derby-dev@db.apache.org&msgNo=1377
and my latest comments on it.
http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200502.mbox/%3c42026E14.8000007@debrunners.com%3e
Dan.