On Oct 28, 7:37 pm, mattk <[email protected]> wrote: > The logic in JDBC::Database.connect attempts to connect first using > the > DriverManager, and if that fails, uses the driver directly. > > However, commit bdd1e3a4476a1033990efdafa2f2ceb938b207ac changed > the logic slighty. If the second (driver) attempt fails, it raises > the > original exception thrown by the driver manager instead of the one > thrown > by the driver itself. > > In our case this is causing a loss of detail. Note the exception > messages in the following scenarios. > > bad username/password using windows auth: > > driverManager: java.sql.SQLException: > No suitable driver found for jdbc:sqlserver:// > localhost;applicationName=XYZ > > driver: com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: > Login failed for user 'JOESDOMAIN\joeblow'. > > bad username/password using sql auth: > > driverManager: java.sql.SQLException: > No suitable driver found for jdbc:sqlserver:// > localhost;applicationName=XYZ > > driver: com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: > Login failed for user 'x'. > > bad host: > > driverManager: java.sql.SQLException: > No suitable driver found for jdbc:sqlserver:// > bad_host;applicationName=XYZ > > driver: com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: > The TCP/IP connection to the host bad_host, port > 1433 has > failed. Error: "null. Verify the connection > properties, check > that an instance of SQL Server is running on the > host and > accepting TCP/IP connections at the port, and that > no firewall > is blocking TCP connections to the port.". > > I'm inclined to simply back out the second part of this commit, and > allow the > driver's exception through, but I wanted to hear what the rationale > was in the > first place. Are there situations in which the driverManager > exception is more > informative?
In the reported cases, the first error message was the more accurate one. Nobody before you has said that the second error message is more accurate. Since it appears that either could be more accurate, the correct solution is to include both when raising the Sequel exception. Can you work on a patch for that? Jeremy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" 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/sequel-talk?hl=en.
