I'm OK with the underscores, I was just curious about the motivation.
David
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
