Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 64701 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2009 07:20:45 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Oct 2009 07:20:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 28620 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2009 07:20:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 28550 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2009 07:20:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 28538 invoked by uid 99); 21 Oct 2009 07:20:41 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:20:41 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: softfail (athena.apache.org: transitioning domain of pid@pidster.com does not designate 209.85.219.207 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.219.207] (HELO mail-ew0-f207.google.com) (209.85.219.207) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:20:39 +0000 Received: by ewy3 with SMTP id 3so5879073ewy.41 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.88.144 with SMTP id a16mr2675034wef.208.1256109616983; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phoenix.config (78-86-122-68.zone2.bethere.co.uk [78.86.122.68]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m5sm2295455gve.26.2009.10.21.00.20.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4ADEB62E.3070402@pidster.com> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:20:14 +0100 From: Pid Reply-To: pid@pidster.com Organization: Pidster Inc User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090715 Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@tomcat.apache.org Subject: Re: Tomcat 5.59 with jTDS, and SQL Server 2005 References: <3BBEB46984E94EC5B94C8BC64B45C910@ULS.local> <4ADE02CE.4070906@verizon.net> <4ADE0763.3040104@verizon.net> <4ADE0D29.6070408@pidster.com> <019801ca51c0$24b8ec30$6e2ac490$@com> In-Reply-To: <019801ca51c0$24b8ec30$6e2ac490$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 20/10/2009 21:01, George Sexton wrote: > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ULS Tech Support [mailto:tech_support@uls.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:35 PM >> To: Tomcat Users List >> Subject: Re: Tomcat 5.59 with jTDS, and SQL Server 2005 >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Pid" >> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:19 PM >> To: "Tomcat Users List" >> Subject: Re: Tomcat 5.59 with jTDS, and SQL Server 2005 >> >> >> >>> >>> 1. Is there a particular barrier to using the official MS driver? (I >> am >>> wincing as I ask). >> http://jtds.sourceforge.net/index.html >> As quoted: >> >> Why use jTDS? >> >> jTDS is free software. jTDS is released under the terms of the GNU >> LGPL, > > Free is over-rated, when you're connecting it to a proprietary db. If you > want free, use PostgreSQL. > >> giving you not only the posibility to debug and tweak it to your own >> liking >> but also to use it in and distribute it with your free or commercial >> applications. You can't distribute the DB itself, so why worry about distributing a driver for it? If an end-user has to install & configure the DB, configuring a driver should be less problematic, by comparison. >> The other "free" choices, the JDBC-ODBC bridge and Microsoft's own JDBC >> driver are not actually free. If you encounter an issue with any of >> them you >> won't be able to fix it yourself and response times from both Microsoft >> and This doesn't look like a Tomcat problem anymore, it looks like a jTDS problem. With respect, your options would seem to be to the afore-mentioned "fix it yourself" or a follow up in that community for an interpretation of what is going wrong. >> Sun are anything but short. Also, both of them lack functionality (the >> Microsoft driver implements JDBC 2.0, while the bridge is just a JDBC >> 1.0 > > That may have been true at one time, but the current drivers are JDBC3 and > JDBC4 compliant. Which is what I found on the MS site, after a cursory look. Try the official driver and see if there's a technical problem with that. p > I have never had a problem with Microsoft's JDBC drivers. They work fine. > > The people that have really bad drivers are Oracle. Their drivers are > horrible. > >> implementation) and have serious stability problems: the bridge crashes >> the >> JVM if the ODBC driver has any problem and Microsoft just has no >> intention >> of really supporting Java/JDBC. > > That's just not true now. MS has full support for JDBC that works well. > > It sounds to me like this site is filled with hyperbola and outdated > information. > > > George Sexton > MH Software, Inc. > http://www.mhsoftware.com/ > Voice: 303 438 9585 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org