I think I did it right: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1878
Now I shall wait for a new version in /trunk, right? Thanks in advance. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Emmanuel Venisse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Continuum 1.2 and SQL Server 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 > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3435 (20080911) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
