Hi Sorry if that was your experience, we are quite happy to have people report problems.
We are quite short handed as far as developers go, so we welcome patches :-) Regards, Noel. On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 02:42, Paigan Jadoth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
