I have no doubt IBM are really committed to Open Source solutions and defiinitely did not imply that there was colusion between the Microsoft and IBM. It makes no sense to distance oneself from Microsoft. What I do believe is that as far as U2 development is concerned it has been expedient to ignore the fact that there are customers that require a completely non-MS solution from the server to the desktop, and that the level of implementation of JDBC ( and to lesser degree, ODBC ) has been at the minimum level required to be able to tick that check box that says JDBC yes/no.
The standard response from IBM when asking for attention to some of the issues related to use tools like ODBC and JDBC has been to fob off the requirement by side stepping the issue and hiding behind the documentation instead of pro-actively assessing the requirement and the opportunities. Compare this to OOo response: After being elated about the success of the JDBC patch in OOo I found a problem updating tables via JDBC, so I posted an issue. Not 1 hour later I get a meaningful response along these lines: <extract> ------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue May 10 23:39:29 -0700 2005 ------- great to hear that it works for you >> Although I can create tables on the UniVerse server I can only get read-only >> access to the tables even though I set ALL PRIVILEGES for PUBLIC and log in >> as >> the SQL administrator. Any suggestions or should I raise a new issue ? > > Definately a new issue, please (http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/basic_rules.html#one_per_issue). However, IIRC, the JDBC driver only supports the READONLY concurrency (as opposed to UPDATABLE, see http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/sql/ResultSet.html#CONCUR_READ_ONLY). OOo previously always tried UPDATABLE. Other drivers downgraded this automatically when necessary, however IBM's Universe driver just complained that it only supports READONLY. This is what the second setting in the macro cares for: it tells OOo to always respect what the driver supports, instead of trying the maximum. Thus, when the result set is not updatable with this setting being <TRUE/>, it means that the driver claims to not support updatable result sets. So: feel free to submit an issue, so we can track it, but I strongly assume that it's a driver problem on IBM's side. </extract> This indicates that someone took the time to actually see what the UniVerse JDBC driver is doing and provides something for IBM to respond to. In none of the cases however where I have asked IBM to look at same/similar issues has there been this sort of explanation., the stock answer being "it is not supported - speak to your vendor". In other words, "idiot, did'nt you read the manual where it says we only support ......." . The 60's typical civil servant response comes to mind - "It's more than me jobs worth" OpenOffice.org is powerful software, and getting UniVerse to work with OOo complements both tools and opens up possibilities not afforded by MS Office eg unattended PDF conversions, mail merges etc on a centralised server and a host of other facilties, eg being able to start an X application on another users display. Don Kibbey wrote: >I really doubt IBM's lack of effort with this project had anything to >do with some sort of agreement with Micro$ft. > >IBM has always known a thing or two about lawyers. In fact the pet >name for IBM's lawyers in the trade is the "Nazgul" from the LOTR >series. If you'd like to see just how effective they can be, just >read up on any of the activites with SCO. Start at www.groklaw.com. > >That said, it's great to see direct support for a query tool within >openoffice for UniVerse. I'll have to give that a try. > >Thanks, >------- >u2-users mailing list >u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
