logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Stauffer <jstau...@spscommerce.com>
Subject RE: Oracle.sql incorrect
Date Wed, 12 May 2004 12:33:24 GMT
Ceki is correct INTEGER doesn't need to be changed to NUMBER(10).  Also I
think my trigger still isn't correct.  I'll check.
 
 

James Stauffer

-----Original Message-----
From: James Stauffer [mailto:jstauffe@spscommerce.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:20 AM
To: 'Log4J Developers List'
Subject: Oracle.sql incorrect



My changes where: 
Prefix comment lines with "--".  "#" didn't parse. 
BIGINT -> NUMBER(20) 
TEXT -> VARCHAR2(4000) 
SMALLINT -> NUMBER(5) 
INT -> NUMBER(10) 
VARCHAR -> VARCHAR2 

I also had to change the trigger to use a declared variable. 

Sorry for the white space changes.  I didn't notice them.  I'll post an
updated diff attachment without the white space changes.  Ceki mentioned
closing the issue and discussing on this list.  That is fine with me but
would I then post the diff to the list?

James Stauffer 


-----Original Message----- 
From: bugzilla@apache.org [mailto:bugzilla@apache.org
<mailto:bugzilla@apache.org> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:46 AM 
To: log4j-dev@jakarta.apache.org 
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28908] - Oracle.sql incorrect 


DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28908
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28908> >. 
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. 

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28908
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28908>  

Oracle.sql incorrect 

ceki@apache.org changed: 

           What    |Removed                     |Added 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED 
           Priority|Other                       |Low 



------- Additional Comments From ceki@apache.org  2004-05-12 08:46 -------
Hello James, 

Thank you for looking into this. I was expecting that some minor fixes would
be required but not changing every single line.

What is wrong with an SQL 92 type such as INTEGER? I would much prefer to
change the lines which are wrong rather than the lines which get changed
while hunting for the lines which were really wrong.

My suggestion would be to continue to dialog on log4j-dev. If you agree,
I'll close this bug report. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org 
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org 


Mime
View raw message