[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > "Knut Anders Hatlen (JIRA)" <derby-dev@db.apache.org> writes: > >> [ >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-924?page=comments#action_12373839 >> ] >> >> Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-924: >> ------------------------------------------ >> >> The patch looks very good. There are however two issues that I would >> like to have resolved before I commit the patch. >> >> 1) In DatabaseMetaData.getFunctionsX() you have this comment: >> >> // Uncomment the following line when DERBY-970 is committed >> // checkServerJdbcVersionX() >> >> Since your patch is likely to get into trunk before my DERBY-970 >> patch, please copy checkServerJdbcVersionX() into your patch and >> enable the check. > > Well, I tried applying that part of your 970 patch to my sandbox, but > since clientmessages_en.properties has been removed and the messages > in it given new messageIds, it was impossible :(
Oh, I'm sorry! I had forgotten that the 970 patch was outdated. When I wrote the comment I thought that it was just a simple copy and paste job. Now that it turns out that it's not that simple, feel free to ignore my comment! :) If you update the metadata test and canons as suggested, I'll commit the patch with the check commented out. I'll try to update my 970 patch and enable the check when I have resolved the i18n conflict. > When you coded your patch, SQLState.java looked as follows: > > String NOT_IMPLEMENTED = > "0A000.S"; > String JDBC_METHOD_NOT_IMPLEMENTED = > "0AX01.S"; > + String JDBC_METHOD_NOT_SUPPORTED_BY_SERVER = > "0AX02.S"; > > Since then NOT_IMPLEMENTED and JDBC_METHOD_NOT_IMPLEMENTED has both > gotten new ids (with the same 5 char prefix): > > String NOT_IMPLEMENTED = > "0A000.S"; String JDBC_METHOD_NOT_IMPLEMENTED > = "0A000.S.1"); > > So clearly your proposed id doesn't quite fit in. Do you have another > suggestion? "0A000.S.2" maybe? Yes, I think 0A000.S.2 should be fine. Thanks for the research! -- Knut Anders
