Jimmy, Patch applied. Thanks ! -- Olivier PS : please next time can you svn diff to generate the patch file. (http://continuum.apache.org/development/guide-continuum-development.html#Creating_and_submitting_a_patch)
2008/9/11 Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 1- checkout continuum2- > modify continuum-model/src/main/resources/package-mssql.orm to use 4000 > 3- rebuild Continuum > 4- check it is ok with your sql server > 5- attach your patch on a jira issue > > Emmanuel > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Jimmy Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The documentation says - 4000 [1] >> >> What to do? >> >> [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186939.aspx >> >> Jim >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Emmanuel Venisse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:45 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server >> >> Hmm. >> 4000, 8000 are numbers sent by sql server. >> Maybe 8000 was a max number for all data types without check the filed >> type. >> On the second step (4000), you don't exceed the max, so it check the field >> type. >> >> Can you check in the sql server doc what is the max allowed for a nvarchar? >> >> Emmanuel >> >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Jimmy Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Oliver, >> > >> > I did this and now I'm getting this message in continuum.log: >> > >> > 2008-09-11 08:46:55,135 [WrapperSimpleAppMain] ERROR JPOX.RDBMS - Error >> > thrown executing CREATE TABLE CHANGESET >> > ( >> > CHANGESET_ID bigint NOT NULL, >> > AUTHOR nvarchar(255) NULL, >> > CHANGECOMMENT nvarchar(8000) NULL, >> > CHANGEDATE bigint NOT NULL, >> > ID nvarchar(255) NULL, >> > MODEL_ENCODING nvarchar(255) NULL, >> > CHANGES_SCMRESULT_ID_OID bigint NULL, >> > CHANGES_INTEGER_IDX int NULL >> > ) : The size (8000) given to the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the >> > maximum allowed (4000). >> > com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: The size (8000) given to >> > the parameter 'CHANGECOMMENT' exceeds the maximum allowed (4000). >> > >> > Why it was 8000 before, now it's 4000... Any ideas? >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > Jim >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> > Olivier Lamy >> > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 5:48 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server >> > >> > Hi, >> > IMHO this cannot be included in the distribution by default as it's a >> > specific database vendor issue. >> > In the webapp, you will find the file in >> > WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/plexus/application.xml. >> > You will find something like : <!-- uncomment this property for mssql >> > support - CONTINUUM-697 --> >> > I'm sure this will help :-) >> > But sure this need to be added in the documenation. >> > >> > -- >> > Olivier >> > >> > 2008/9/10 Jimmy Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > > Olivier, >> > > >> > > I have SQL Server and I have this problem (I reported it in users@). >> > > >> > > Please, let me know how to test it, I'm ready. I use the latest code >> from >> > > /trunk. So, as soon as you raise a flag, I will compile and try to run >> > with >> > > my SQL Server. >> > > >> > > Thanks. >> > > >> > > Jim >> > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of >> > > Olivier Lamy >> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:37 AM >> > > To: [email protected] >> > > Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server >> > > >> > > Great. >> > > But why it doesn't work and how to enable this ? >> > > >> > > Sorry I don't have a mssql server here ;-) >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Olivier >> > > >> > > 2008/9/10 Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> The size (8000) is already define for mssql: >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-model/src/main/re >> > > sources/package-mssql.orm >> > >> >> > >> Emmanuel >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Olivier Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> arghhhh :-))) >> > >>> >> > >>> It's due to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1688. >> > >>> >> > >>> We can certainly reduce the size to 8000. >> > >>> I will reopen the issue. >> > >>> IMHO, we should control it and why not reduce the String if it's too >> > long >> > >>> >> > >>> -- >> > >>> Olivier >> > >>> PS : olamy complains about database vendor restriction ;-) >> > >>> >> > >>> 2008/9/10 Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >>> > Sorry for finding more issues :) Since this one is a regression I >> > > thought >> > >>> it >> > >>> > might require some attention. >> > >>> > >> > >>> > I saw on the users@ list that someone had a problem using SQL >> Server >> > >>> because >> > >>> > of the length of changeComment being increased to 8192 (> 8000). I >> > > think >> > >>> > this was previously shorter - is that right? >> > >>> > >> > >>> > If so, should it be reduced by this small amount? >> > >>> > >> > >>> > I'm still getting to test the database upgrade... once done and >> > >>> documented >> > >>> > I'm happy with the release. >> > >>> > >> > >>> > - Brett >> > >>> > >> > >>> > -- >> > >>> > Brett Porter >> > >>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >>> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> > >> >> > > >> > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> > signature >> > > database 3430 (20080910) __________ >> > > >> > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> > > >> > > http://www.eset.com >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> > signature >> > > database 3430 (20080910) __________ >> > > >> > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> > > >> > > http://www.eset.com >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> > signature >> > database 3432 (20080910) __________ >> > >> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> > >> > http://www.eset.com >> > >> > >> > >> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> > signature >> > database 3434 (20080911) __________ >> > >> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> > >> > http://www.eset.com >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature >> database 3434 (20080911) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >
