Oh, hi! I missed your post, as it seems :-(.
Thank you for the kind words. I fully agree: improvements are nice, but critical stuff has to have priority. Especially if the tasks are on one's personal work load. I have a similar situation with some hobby projects that are productively used in our company now, although they're not as "big" as H2. Despite all the agreement and understand (and respect) for Thomas' priorities, every single topic so far pretty much received a kind of "NO, go away!" reaction instead of a "I see the problem, but it's too low at the moment" reaction. Still I understand that as well, so I will continue to report problems or potential improvements as I encounter them, even if they get reppelled every time :D and maybe provide satisfying workarounds if possible (and add them to my personal "H2 known issues" collection ]:-> ). So thanks again for the commendation. Also a short reply to Noel's suggestion: If by that a manual / application-side parsing of the CHECK_EXPRESSION was meant, then: not, it's not the correct solution, as the explaining should have made abundantly clear. Nevertheless I have a sufficient workaround, so I'm fine. On Dec 17 2011, 10:49 am, Rami Ojares <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paigan, > > I have been reading your recent posts to this list and want to commend > the clarity and clear reasoning in your line of arguments. > Improving the Information Schema is never a bad thing. > The whole of jdbc metadata api can be done away with if the database has > a good system catalog. > It is in the spirit of relational theory and sql to represent all the > metadata of the database in the system catalog (Information schema in > h2's case). > > This can be utilized especially by tools built on top of h2. > So while these improvements are not urgent they certainly improve h2. > > One huge improvement (something that does not exist in other databases) > would be to add > the ability to refer to system catalog tables from foreign keys. This > would provide a clear and reliable mechanism > to make some data in the user space to rely on the existence of database > objects. > > But I also understand Thomas' focus on priorities and I have always > admired his strong commitment > in fixing bugs from H2 that lead to corruption. And as the roadmap seems > to be Thomas' personal tasklist > I feel that he has the right to control it according to his preferences. > > I know I am repeating myself but I think that simple improvements > (backward compatible improvements) > that are well grounded should always make it into h2, provided that they > adhere to basic guidelines like having proper tests etc. > > Please, correct me if I am wrong or stepping out of line, Thomas. > > - Rami Ojares -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en.
