My earlier message was little vague. In the second paragraph, I am talking about Jira entry DERBY-2668.
As for DERBY-2866, Kathey can I close it as a duplicate of DERBY-2668? I think they are both talking about the same problem. Mamta On 6/26/07, Mamta Satoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan, I will go ahead and enter a Jira entry which will handle the task of checking how all the collation determination logic can be put in one central place. As for the error message, I agree that it is confusing. I will go ahead and put the comments from this thread about possibly using the actual collation type in the error message. I hope to work on this Jira entry after finishing couple other todos on collation. Mamta On 6/26/07, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > Mike Matrigali < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> This sounds like an easy solution to this issue, but will change the > >> error message for all comparison mismatches that are not territory > >> related. Does that sound ok? > > I would have thought that there would be a different error message. > Looking at the comments in DERBY-2668 it seems to says a single message > is used because DataTypeDescriptor.comparable() is used to determine if > the collations are compatible for comparision. However, I'm not sure how > > this can be implementing the required logic behind collation > determination, which requires inspection of all the types involved, not > just two. I think this goes back to my concern that the required complex > logic for determining collation is not in a single method, rather spread > > out across several locations, each with different logic. Even the logic > in DTD.comparable does not match what is required by the SQL spec > (section 9.13 I think). > > Dan. > > >
