db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Van Couvering <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-319) Derby returns incorrect values for "LENGTH" column of DatabaseMetaData.getProcedureColumns() result set.
Date Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:30:08 GMT
I'm OK with the underscores, I was just curious about the motivation.


Army wrote:

> David Van Couvering (JIRA) wrote:
>>     [ 
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-319?page=comments#action_12313084 
>> ]
>> David Van Couvering commented on DERBY-319:
>> -------------------------------------------
>> I took a look at this patch and it looks good, very clean and 
>> well-documented.  Looks like you also covered
>> some types that were missing in the metadata test.
> Thanks for taking the time to review!
>> My only question was why some of the columns in the metadata test  
>> alltypes table, some of the columns have lots of underscores in them.  
>> I couldn't follow the logic for this.
> I see two columns that have extra underscores in them: "char8col___" and 
> "char8forbitcol___".  Are these the columns you're referring to?  The 
> first one was like that in the test before my patch--I don't know _why_ 
> it was like that, but I didn't think it was something that needed to be 
> changed.  The second one, which I added, has the extra underscores 
> because I copied the first one and just added "forbitcol" to the name; I 
> didn't think to remove to the extra underscores.
> So my answer to your question is "Umm...don't know".  But then again, 
> since it doesn't hurt to have the underscores there, I'm not sure if 
> this is something that we should bother changing?  Underscores are a 
> valid part of a column name, so their presence seems acceptable to 
> me...*shrug*
> If anyone believes that these column names _should_ be changed, then I 
> can certainly go ahead and do so.  But personally, while they are a bit 
> odd, I'm still okay with them being there...
> Thanks again for the review!
> Army

View raw message