Mike, I have attached the partial DTD constrcutor changes patch to DERBY-2599.
Mamta On 4/30/07, Mamta Satoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, I have some work done in my codeline. I will post that partial change to DERBY-2599. thanks, Mamta On 4/30/07, Mike Matrigali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Mamta Satoor wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am working on putting the correct collation type and derivation for > > DTDs. The approach I am taking is to change all the constructors for > > DTDs to accept the collation type and derivation. It will be the > > responsibility of the caller of the DTD constructor to pass this > > information for all different kinds of DTDs, ie whether the DTD is for > > collation sensitive datatypes (which include the character string > > datatypes), or all the other non-collation sensitive datatypes (eg > > numeric, binary etc,). For non collation sensitive datatypes, the > caller > > will pass collation derivation of "none" which will mean that > collation > > type of such datatypes should be ignored. > > > > I just wanted to bring it to community's attention that this approach > of > > changing the DTD constructor signature is requiring lot of changes > since > > all the callers now have to taken on the task of passing the collation > > > type and derivation. I think that is the right approach ie have > callers > > take on the responsibility of associating the collation types and > > derivations for their DTDs. Let me know if anyone has any feedback on > > how I am approaching this. > > > Have you done any of this work yet, if so could you post a partial patch > as an example of the kinds of changes you are proposing. I don't expect > a completed work, just something to get a feel of the type of changes. > > > thanks, > > Mamta > >
