continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Emmanuel Venisse" <emmanuel.veni...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server
Date Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:57:12 GMT
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 <jimmycnw@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 <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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message