[daisy] regarding the DB2 issues -- @Aaron

[Bruno Dumon]

On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 14:01 +0100, Aaron.Digulla at Globus.ch wrote:
> daisy-bounces at lists.cocoondev.org schrieb am 22.01.2007 12:12:30:
> 
> > >  You'll see these if you start 
> > > to base your test cases in Derby, for example.
> > > 
> > > The issue about the length of the table names is probably DB2 specific 
> but 
> > > I hope that you can accept shorter names in your model :-)
> > > 
> > > When these are fixed, porting to new "big" DBs like Oracle and DB2 
> (were 
> > > JDBC support is nowhere as good as in MySQL :-( ) will be much more 
> simple 
> > > (namely writing or copying the Torque scripts).
> > > 
> > 
> > Exactly. That's why I would very much welcome patches for *current
> > trunk* that fix *specific issues*, i.e. a separate patch for the quote
> > issue, a separate patch for the select null issue, etc. That way
> > harmless enhancements can be easily committed.
> > 
> > Some items I really need to verify myself, like the DATE vs DATETIME
> > thing (does that really give the exact same type in the mysql scripts as
> > before?), before committing them, and that takes time.
> > 
> > And once more, your patch has never been committable to trunk because
> > almost all SQL statements were touched as part of the introduction of
> > namespaces. Now, let's stop talking about this ;-)
> 
> Unfortunately, I cannot submit patches against trunk because I have to use 
> the current production version of Daisy. I'm not paid to support OSS, I'm 
> paid to build production ready systems. Being the economy as it currently 
> is, this is something we both can't do something about. So while your 
> argument makes sense from an OSS point of view, it doesn't make sense from 
> my point of view as a patch submitter.

The support-thing was Steven's (and my) general view on database
support, which isn't directed at your patch directly. IMO, anything that
makes Daisy more db-agnostic shouldn't be ignored (and we haven't
ignored your stuff), regardless of whether we choose to support, or
recommend usage of, Daisy on other databases right now.

> 
> My argument is this: It took me about thirty minutes to write these 
> patches (the bigs ones are Search&Replace, the smaller ones are just a few 
> lines where most of the time was spent finding the line).
> 
> I figure it will take *you* five minutes to look at the patch, understand 
> what it fixes and port it to trunk. Therefore, your constant arguing 
> against it is only achieving to infuriate me especially since it's a 
> non-issue really. You've already spent more time arguing that it would 
> take to fix the issue, goddamnit :-(

As far as I remember, all I've done is thanked for the patch and thanked
for helping to clarify other DB-portability issues, and said I'll look
at them when time permits. Since you're working with 1.5, right now it
doesn't change anything that the patches are not applied to trunk.

Some parts of the patch will take me more than 5 minutes to evaluate
(such as the changes in datatypes), and besides I've already had to
squeeze in lots of extra work over the last months.

(and all this is not intended as 'arguing against it')

> 
> Okay, since it's now four months since I originally submitted the patches, 
> it will take you more than five minutes because of all the changes you 
> made since but that's something I can't change. I did all I could to 
> prevent this from happening.

Nothing to worry about, the relevant parts of trunk didn't change much
since you submitted the patch. If it's only 5 minutes work to port them
to trunk, you could have submitted an updated patch as well, but indeed,
you're not interested in that.

Ok, now this has really been my last mail on this subject.

-- 
Bruno Dumon                             http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
bruno at outerthought.org                          bruno at apache.org