Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 53060 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2006 18:26:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Jul 2006 18:26:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 27959 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jul 2006 18:26:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 27937 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jul 2006 18:26:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" Delivered-To: mailing list derby-user@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 27926 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jul 2006 18:26:45 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:26:45 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.9 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [32.97.110.152] (HELO e34.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.152) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:26:44 -0700 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6FIQNIg004664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:26:23 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k6FIQNFi294214 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:26:23 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k6FIQNtB003608 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:26:23 -0600 Received: from [9.49.141.19] (sig-9-49-141-19.mts.ibm.com [9.49.141.19]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6FIQMRu003600 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:26:23 -0600 Message-ID: <44B9334D.5010307@sbcglobal.net> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:26:21 -0700 From: Kathey Marsden Reply-To: kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060414 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Derby Discussion Subject: Re: should Clob.getSubstring() allow length of 0? References: <44B81707.10509@sbcglobal.net> <44B840FD.2090608@sun.com> <44B84397.4050902@sbcglobal.net> <44B845BD.7030701@sun.com> <44B848D9.5090302@sbcglobal.net> <10ED60AA-760E-47A3-A94E-39F1D7CC8283@SUN.com> <44B8878C.8050103@sbcglobal.net> <9C56BFE7-F944-43B5-A135-42D12618E9F9@SUN.com> In-Reply-To: <9C56BFE7-F944-43B5-A135-42D12618E9F9@SUN.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Craig L Russell wrote: > > Now that Kathey has kicked it back to you and me ... [snip conversation on addressing the issue] Thank you Craig for following up on this. I always give myself a point for every Derby bug I find and file even if it doesn't directly affect me or my current support cases because I know it will help a user down the road and help make Derby better. Even though this one is no longer worth the point to me because of the language involved I am sure there is a user down the road that will benefit from your efforts. I did want to clarify with Lance however whether he thinks the language he used to describe the usage is appropriate for derby-user, whether the usage itsself was correct or not. I am sure it was just the result of a very hard day in the JDBC compliance world as I have never seen anything like that from Lance before. I have plenty of posts in the permanant archives resulting from such days that I wish I could purge and often feel better knowing at least my own personal rejection of my comment is there for the record too. Lance, do you think your words describing the getSubString usage in this thread : http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-should-Clob.getSubstring%28%29-allow-length-of-0--p5336628.html were [ ] OK [ ] Not OK ? Sorry for my lack of clarity in describing my concerns. I think it stems from my unwillingness to quote or cut and paste the comment in question. Kathey