continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jimmy Conway" <jimmy...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Date Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:07:50 GMT
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 <jimmycnw@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 <jimmycnw@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 <emmanuel.venisse@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 <olamy@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 <brett@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


Mime
View raw message