Geir, Will this MySQL DDL fix still allow for case-incensitive matching?
Steve -----Original Message----- From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 8:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: caseSensitiveMatch ? On Feb 11, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Viens, Stephen wrote: > Probably not ... There's still work to be done in/around the use of > findQualifiers in jUDDI. Well, I traced it down to the fact that I am using MySQL, which doesn't actually do SQL, but something sorta like it. So the fix is to change the DDL for MySQL to require that searches are binary - this was a quickie 'let me try it to see if I can make sure Scout is ok' - and I don't know the implications of doing this beyond this, but the patch is : Index: create_database.sql =================================================================== RCS file: /home/cvspublic/ws-juddi/sql/mysql/create_database.sql,v retrieving revision 1.4 diff -r1.4 create_database.sql 58c58 < NAME VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL, --- > NAME VARCHAR(255) BINARY NOT NULL, 187c187 < NAME VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL, --- > NAME VARCHAR(255) BINARY NOT NULL, which is changing the create table for BUSINESS_NAME and SERVICE_NAME to make the NAME field 'binary'. I'm going to port the DDL to Derby, and offer that to the project. We'll be hanging jUDDI onto Geronimo as our UDDI registry, and we'll just use the internal Derby database by default. The bonus is that Derby implements SQL :) geir > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:26 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: caseSensitiveMatch ? > > > I'm doing findService() with a "caseSensitiveMatch" findQualifier. > > I get back stuff that doesn't match - it would if it were > caseINsensitive, but ... > > Am I doing something wrong? > > -- > Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
