Sorry for the confusion. I meant to say "Note that NOT all the character string types take their collation from the compilation schema. For instance, persistent character string type column from a table will take the collation type from the schema their table belongs to rather than the compilation schema.
" I think there is some link somewhere on Derby wiki which shows how to fix commit comment. I will search for it. Mamta On 5/31/07, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Author: mamta > Date: Thu May 31 14:30:02 2007 > New Revision: 543266 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=543266 > Log: > DERBY-2599 > There are few character string types that should take their collation type from compilation schema. I had earlier checked in code for them > to use current schema rather than compilation schema (For reference http://www.nabble.com/more-on-system-schema-vs.-user-schema-and-character-constants.-p10885286.html ) > With this commit, I am adding an utility method in ValueNode called setCollationUsingCompilationSchema(int) which will use the compilation > schema's collation type for it's DTD. And it will use the passed int value to set its DTD's collation derivation. This utility method will > be used by the subclasses of ValueNode to set their DTD's collation type to compilation schema's type wherever required. This is confusing ... > Note that all the > character string types always take their collation from the compilation schema. For instance, persistent character string type column from a > table will take the collation type from the schema their table belongs to rather than the compilation schema. The "for instance" contradicts the "Note" it is trying to enforce? Note says all character types take the collation from the compilation schema. For instance says that character string columns don't. Can you clarify? Dan.
