OK, working on it, should have a patch attached to the bug by Monday
morning.
David
Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for taking time to address this... Yes, I think this is a good
idea. As long as your patch doesn't break any existing functionality and
correctly update affected tests, I think partial checks are good.
Satheesh
David Van Couvering wrote:
Hi, all. I am thinking it would be beneficial to provide a partial
patch of the network client i18n be submitted to the codeline. This
would be the general framework and about 100 converted messages.
I am worried that if I wait until it's all done, it's a lot of
messages, and the reviewer would have a hard time working through it
all. The other advantage is that reviewers can catch any issues
before I convert the all of the messages, potentially saving me a lot
of time. The observed behavior change for the user would be the
following:
- Some percentage of exceptions will have valid SQL states rather than
null SQL staes
- Some messages have changed slightly (some of them were worded pretty
"sparsely", like "Driver not capable")
- There is a new default error code for network client exceptions that
is more in line with the error codes coming from the server
Would a partial checkin of the i18n be acceptable, or does someone
have a strong objection to this?
Thanks,
David
begin:vcard
fn:David Van Couvering
n:Van Couvering;David
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc.;Database Technology Group
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Staff Software Engineer
tel;work:510-550-6819
tel;cell:510-684-7281
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
