Well, actually, I *was* planning on only correcting the message property files. I think fixing SQL State and adding comments in prep for JDBC 4 is beyond the scope of this bug...
I suggest we add a separate JIRA item for the task you are suggesting... David Lance J. Andersen wrote: > David. > > If you are planning on doing this and making a pass throughout the code > to make sure the correct SQLState is set correctly (not just correcting > the message property files), it might be worthwhile to add some type of > marker comment in places where the code will need to be changed for JDBC > 4 in order to bring the SQLExceptions being thrown in line with the > changes for the new SQLExceptions based on the SQL state class values. > > By at least having an easy to find comment, it will make it easier to > go back and do the retrofit. Of course this only makes sense if you are > going to make a pass through the entire derby codeline for this adventure. > > just a thought if you are looking to have some more fun 8-) > > David Van Couvering wrote: > > >>I could do this; every time I talk to customers they hammer into me >>that clear and helpful error messages are key. >> >>It would *really* help if I knew which message texts were modified in >>the doc. Is it limited to the Derby-specific messages with SQLStates >>starting with "X"? >> >>Would I submit this as an independent patch to the same JIRA item? >>Note also that I may find "bugs" in the messages that would require a >>redo of the documentation... >> >>David >> >>Jean T. Anderson wrote: >> >> >>>David Van Couvering wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I would agree... I think the right thing to do would be to fix the >>>>code. >>>> >>>>David >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>is that an offer? :-) >>> >>> -jean >>> >>> >>> >>>>Jean T. Anderson (JIRA) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> [ >>>>>http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-296?page=comments#action_65717 >>>>>] >>>>> Jean T. Anderson commented on DERBY-296: >>>>>---------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>>Regarding this: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>During my work, I discovered that many of the messages could use >>>>>>some spellchecking, grammar checking, etc. Rather than document >>>>>>them this way, I corrected them. At some point a separate JIRA >>>>>>issue should be made, and someone should undertake the task of >>>>>>fixing the actual message strings to reflect the correct grammar, >>>>>>spelling, punctuation, etc. used in this document. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I'm concerned users might be confused if the error message an >>>>>application spits out does not exactly match the error message >>>>>string documented in the Reference Manual. >>>>>I think this work shouldn't be committed until doc matches code >>>>>(whether it involves changing the messages in this patch or >>>>>modifying the code to match these). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Document >>>>>>-------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Key: DERBY-296 >>>>>> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-296 >>>>>> Project: Derby >>>>>> Type: Task >>>>>> Components: Documentation >>>>>>Environment: all >>>>>> Reporter: Jeff Levitt >>>>>> Assignee: Jeff Levitt >>>>>> Priority: Minor >>>>>>Attachments: derby296.zip >>>>>> >>>>>>I've spent some time compiling a list of error messages for Derby, >>>>>>to expand on the error messages section currently in the Reference >>>>>>Manual. I am about ready to submit a candidate patch, and I am >>>>>>opening up a JIRA issue to contain it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
