RE: Asking again... please help me!!!
You really need to look at your DW installation/user manual/tutorial: how to set up a site within DW and how to configure a db resource. The mySQL part as such seems to work ok, but I doubt there are any db connections defined yet (ODBC or JDBC). If this is new stuff to you take the ODBC route, it's easier especially if you are on Windows. Jan > -Original Message- > From: Lost Idols [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 18:15 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Asking again... please help me!!! > > > I did ask this before, but haven't got any help yet. > I'm trying this again... so please let me know if you know. > > Setting up MySQL and PHP on my Mac OS X 10.2 > Just made it work... well, at least I now have a databse > that I created and a table with two things inserted. > I can also see them when I do a SELECT... > > So, since I know it's working, I started my DW MX > to try to work from there, but I just get an error. > I've been setting up the database with all the info > and when I want to select from the list of databases > I just get the following message: > > HTTP Error Code 404 File Not Found. > Here are some possible reasons for the problem: > > 1) There is no testing server running on the server machine. > > What's wrong? Any clues here in this list? > > Staffan > > PS. I'm a newbie, so please write in newbie language ;-) > > _ > Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Sök http://search.msn.se/ > > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Licence question
Hi Stéphane, I share the comments already expressed by Roger. But would like to add the following: - If you represent company 2 you will not have to purchase the client licenses. - It seems to me it is the sole responsibility of company 1 to secure the legality and the compliance to the GPL licence of their product or alternatively include a non-GPL license in their product. You might want to ask them about this if you feel unsure or have doubts. Jan > -Original Message- > From: Stéphane Bischoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 15:31 > To: 'Ron Albright' > Cc: MySQL (E-mail) > Subject: RE: Licence question > > > Thank you for all your response, but my question is very simple : > > Example : > > We have company 1 that make's a product that communicate with MySQL server > using TCP/IP. > This product (company 1) does not use the MySQL client to connect to MySQL > server. (Don't ask me how, I don't know) > (By the way, this product really exist, that is why I am asking this > question). > > Therefore, if Company 2 has a MySQL server (commercial license) and > purchases 100 product from company 1, > does company 2 need a 100 MySQL client or driver licenses ??? > > I believe not (2 reasons) > > 1 - I paid company 1 for its product. > 2 - the product does not use MySQL client to connect to MySQL server. > > This is what is bugging me, can you help ? > > thank you, > > -Original Message- > From: Ron Albright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 3 décembre, 2003 18:27 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Licence question > > > At 01:26 PM 12/3/2003, Chuck Gadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >This is your standard "I am not a lawyer" type answer, because reading > >the text of the GPL can be overwhelming, but the way I understand it, > >if you are shipping MySql with your app, then you've either got to > >release your app under the GPL, or you've got to buy a commercial > >Mysql license for each copy of your app that you ship. > > > >If you were to simply download and install MySQL at your company > >office, then write apps for in-house use at your company, then > >you have no license issues. Your apps would not need to be > >GPL, and you do not need a Mysql commercial license. > > > >This was discussed by a Mysql AB employee during the MySQL > >training class I took a few weeks ago. > > This is somewhat ambiguous. From the statements below it would > appear to me > that you can ship MySQL with an application as long as the your > application > does not directly link to the MySQL libraries as would be the case if > embedded. But "mere aggregation" seems to apply even if your application > starts the database as a separate executable. The last paragraph of the > first question seems to allow shipping it along with your application but > the last sentence leaves it somewhat open to question. > > From the GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html): > > > What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two > modules into one program"? > > Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the > same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are > separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of > the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program. > > Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a > single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole > combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or > won't, do > that, you may not combine them. > > What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal > question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper > criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, > pipes, rpc, > function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of > the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). > > If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are > definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked > together in a shared address space, that almost surely means > combining them > into one program. > > By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication > mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are > used for communication, the modules normally are separate > programs. But if > the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, > exchanging complex > internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two > parts as combined into a larger program. > > > > If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the > requirements for the licenses of a plug-in. > > It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses > fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate > programs, > so the license for the main program makes no requirements for t
RE: "not null" and default values confusion
Thank you Michael for your reply.
Ok, at least there is a good reason and now I too understand the reason
behind it.
I have to admit that even if I can remember having earlier read that part
you quoted I never really "understood" what there was written since the
logic behind this just didn't make sense to me.
But does anybody know if this is to be changed in the future for the
transactional db formats now ones supported ?
Michael, maybe your'e right about the client program having to do the
validation. But as (having) relied heavily on booleans, lists etc combined
with defining not null:s in the columns I'm somewhat shaken at the moment.
MySQL doesn't put in empty strings in int type columns, I was merely just so
upset I managed to get more of my test columns with varchar type.
Jan
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Stassen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 05:13
> To: Jan Magnusson
> Cc: Mysql General mailing list
> Subject: Re: "not null" and default values confusion
>
>
> Jan,
>
> This question comes up a lot. You should take a look at
> <http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/constraint_NOT_NULL.html>. The first line
> is, "To be able to support easy handling of non-transactional tables,
> all fields in MySQL have default values." Mysql automatically converts
> missing or illegal values to column defaults, because in the
> non-transactional case, it cannot roll back when you have an illegal
> value in the Nth row of a multi row insert.
>
> The solution is to have the program/client verify data before inserting,
> updating, or loading the db, rather than counting on mysql to reject bad
> data. After all, there are a lot of ways for data to technically fit a
> column definition but still be bad in terms of your application. If you
> can't trust users not to leave a field blank, can you trust them not to
> enter nonsense? As long as you're validating input anyway, making sure
> it's not NULL shouldn't be a big deal.
>
> You can turn off defaults for single row inserts by building your own
> mysql from source with the -DDONT_USE_DEFAULT_FIELDS compile option, in
> which case insert statements will "generate an error unless you
> explicitly specify values for all columns that require a non-NULL
> value." But if I understand correctly, this turns off using any
> defaults, even those you've explicitly set in column definitions.
> (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)
>
> Finally, I'd be shocked if mysql stored an empty string in an int
> column. Perhaps mysqlcc got confused?
>
> Michael
>
> Jan Magnusson wrote:
> > Dear List,
> >
> >
> > Could sombody explain this behaviour of mySQL 4 to me:
> >
> > Assigning a column as "not null" will AUTOMATICALLY assign
> (=force upon) it
> > a default value of an empty string ('') if a string or zero (0) if a
> > numerical datatype. Thereby effectively bypassing all and every error
> > message during inserts if missing values in records.
> >
> > Why ???
> >
> > - This behaviour in effect means there will never be generated an error
> > during insertion and omitting a column assigned as "not null"
> because mysql
> > will on its own generate a default value for it.
> >
> > - What use do I have for the "not null" constraint on the column if it's
> > anyway assigned a value. As it now works it's the same as
> forcing a default
> > value attribute.
> >
> > - At first I understood the mySQL documentation (6.3.5.) so
> that if you just
> > omit the value but still having the default attribute specified in your
> > CREATE TABLE... it would then automatically give it a "default default
> > value". Makes sense.
> >
> > - This does not seem to apply to PK:s, but all other columns.
> >
> > BTW, when trying this out with mysqlcc I also managed to generate output
> > where the default value generated by mysql for an int data type column
> > contrary to documentation too was an empty string instead of "0".
> >
> > Am I now missing something obvious in the logic of this behaviour ???
> >
> > Jan
> >
>
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe:
http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"not null" and default values confusion
Dear List,
Could sombody explain this behaviour of mySQL 4 to me:
Assigning a column as "not null" will AUTOMATICALLY assign (=force upon) it
a default value of an empty string ('') if a string or zero (0) if a
numerical datatype. Thereby effectively bypassing all and every error
message during inserts if missing values in records.
Why ???
- This behaviour in effect means there will never be generated an error
during insertion and omitting a column assigned as "not null" because mysql
will on its own generate a default value for it.
- What use do I have for the "not null" constraint on the column if it's
anyway assigned a value. As it now works it's the same as forcing a default
value attribute.
- At first I understood the mySQL documentation (6.3.5.) so that if you just
omit the value but still having the default attribute specified in your
CREATE TABLE... it would then automatically give it a "default default
value". Makes sence.
- This does not seem to apply to PK:s, but all other columns.
BTW, when trying out this with mysqlcc I also managed to generate output
where the default value generated by mysql for an int data type column
contrary to documentation too was an empty string instead of "0".
Am I now missing something obvious in the logic of this behaviour ???
Jan
RE: Several tables or huge single table?
Hi Wolfgang, I'd say it somewhat depends on what data you have and what you really are going to use the records for. If you never need to retrieve data for more than one product at a time and there are significant differences in the data set between the products then maybe you might split it. Otherways you will complicate things a lot by not having them in the same table. And is the data set (not) the same for all the products ? And will you get more products in the future (ending up adding tables) ? I would anyway go for the one table solution if there isn't any significant reason to split it on 26 separate tables. And then of cause the data normalisation issue is another thing. Jan -Original Message- From: W. Bauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 21:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Several tables or huge single table? Dear all I have a table with more than 100'000 records for a single product. At the end, I will have tables for 26 prodcuts. There is basically no dependence on other tables. Somewhere I read that one should avoid a large number of tables in a database. Is it more recommendable to have a single huge table for all products togehter or is it better to keep 26 distinct tables? Thanks for a hint, Wolfgang Bauer -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: making specific query for big data
I think he is looking for a way to just retrieve some data prior to a specific (although dynamic) point of the full data saved in a longtext datatype column. Like retrieving just the header of email messages saved with attachments etc in a longtext column. Perhaps having that header data saved in a separate column would fulfill the purpose... Jan -Original Message- From: Director General: NEFACOMP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 17:16 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: making specific query for big data I don't understand well. Are you looking for the MAX value of a column? Or its data size? Thanks Emery - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:21 Subject: making specific query for big data > Hello all.. > > so > Is it possible to do this: > make query on mysql > ask to select from blabla where bigdata= > but tell to get only all data before --header end-- string into it > > so it will give in result only strings what are found before --header end-- > > becouse after this string goes very big data > ps. bigdata field is "longtext" > > ok.. there is whole picture of this: > I have longtext field > I need to get only data before --header end-- (or any other pattern) > so in result it will give only info before that pattern > > is it possible to as mysql to get some data from field not alll > > -- Tavs bezmaksas pasts Inbox.lv > ___ > FLASH GAMES - http://games.inbox.lv > -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
