OFBiz › OFBiz - Dev

Should we revert 1530237?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

9 messages Options

Jacopo Cappellato-5

Should we revert 1530237?

Hi all,

in rev. 1530237 the sql type for Postgres for "comments" and "description" fields was changed from VARCHAR(255) to TEXT:

https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/ofbiz/?cs=1530237

The original contribution and discussion can be found here:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1920

However I don't think it was a good idea and I suggest to change the types back to VARCHAR(255) because the new TEXT type allows strings of any length; all other types definitions (MySQL, Derby etc...) are using VARCHAR(255) thus limiting the length of "comments" and "description" fields to 255 characters and now Postgres is the only one that is different.

In my opinion we should set postgres to VARCHAR(255) too until we will decide to change the size for all the dbs.

Any objections?

Kind regards,

Jacopo

Adrian Crum-3

Re: Should we revert 1530237?

I had a problem with a deployment using the new Postgres field types.
Once an application is built using those field types, you can't switch
it to another database.

I recommend we remove the file completely and go back to the original
Postgres field types file.

Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com

On 8/21/2015 3:34 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> in rev. 1530237 the sql type for Postgres for "comments" and "description" fields was changed from VARCHAR(255) to TEXT:
>
> https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/ofbiz/?cs=1530237
>
> The original contribution and discussion can be found here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1920
>
> However I don't think it was a good idea and I suggest to change the types back to VARCHAR(255) because the new TEXT type allows strings of any length; all other types definitions (MySQL, Derby etc...) are using VARCHAR(255) thus limiting the length of "comments" and "description" fields to 255 characters and now Postgres is the only one that is different.
>
> In my opinion we should set postgres to VARCHAR(255) too until we will decide to change the size for all the dbs.
>
> Any objections?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>

Michael Brohl-3

Re: Should we revert 1530237?

In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-5

Hi Jacopo,

I agree that the field length should be equal on every database to avoid
migration problems if you change the database.
So +1.

Regards,

Michael Brohl
ecomify GmbH
www.ecomify.de

Am 21.08.15 um 12:34 schrieb Jacopo Cappellato:

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment

taher

Re: Should we revert 1530237?

Hi Jacopo,

+1 It makes perfect sense to have consistent database "rules" across the different databases to reduce fragmentation and workarounds.

Taher Alkhateeb

----- Original Message -----

From: "Michael Brohl" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, 21 August, 2015 3:26:24 PM
Subject: Re: Should we revert 1530237?

Hi Jacopo,

I agree that the field length should be equal on every database to avoid
migration problems if you change the database.
So +1.

Regards,

Michael Brohl
ecomify GmbH
www.ecomify.de

Am 21.08.15 um 12:34 schrieb Jacopo Cappellato:

Arun Patidar-2

Re: Should we revert 1530237?

+1.

Thanks & Regards
---
Arun Patidar
Manager,Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems
www.hotwaxsystems.com

On Friday 21 August 2015 06:03 PM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote:

> Hi Jacopo,
>
> +1 It makes perfect sense to have consistent database "rules" across the different databases to reduce fragmentation and workarounds.
>
> Taher Alkhateeb
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Michael Brohl" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Friday, 21 August, 2015 3:26:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Should we revert 1530237?
>
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> I agree that the field length should be equal on every database to avoid
> migration problems if you change the database.
> So +1.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Brohl
> ecomify GmbH
> www.ecomify.de
>
> Am 21.08.15 um 12:34 schrieb Jacopo Cappellato:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> in rev. 1530237 the sql type for Postgres for "comments" and "description" fields was changed from VARCHAR(255) to TEXT:
>>
>> https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/ofbiz/?cs=1530237
>>
>> The original contribution and discussion can be found here:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1920
>>
>> However I don't think it was a good idea and I suggest to change the types back to VARCHAR(255) because the new TEXT type allows strings of any length; all other types definitions (MySQL, Derby etc...) are using VARCHAR(255) thus limiting the length of "comments" and "description" fields to 255 characters and now Postgres is the only one that is different.
>>
>> In my opinion we should set postgres to VARCHAR(255) too until we will decide to change the size for all the dbs.
>>
>> Any objections?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>
>
>

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Should we revert 1530237?

Administrator

I made it, but agree consistency is better +1

Jacques

Le 21/08/2015 15:28, Arun Patidar a écrit :

> +1.
>
> Thanks & Regards
> ---
> Arun Patidar
> Manager,Enterprise Software Development
> HotWax Systems
> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>
> On Friday 21 August 2015 06:03 PM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote:
>> Hi Jacopo,
>>
>> +1 It makes perfect sense to have consistent database "rules" across the different databases to reduce fragmentation and workarounds.
>>
>> Taher Alkhateeb
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: "Michael Brohl" <[hidden email]>
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Sent: Friday, 21 August, 2015 3:26:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: Should we revert 1530237?
>>
>> Hi Jacopo,
>>
>> I agree that the field length should be equal on every database to avoid
>> migration problems if you change the database.
>> So +1.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Michael Brohl
>> ecomify GmbH
>> www.ecomify.de
>>
>> Am 21.08.15 um 12:34 schrieb Jacopo Cappellato:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> in rev. 1530237 the sql type for Postgres for "comments" and "description" fields was changed from VARCHAR(255) to TEXT:
>>>
>>> https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/ofbiz/?cs=1530237
>>>
>>> The original contribution and discussion can be found here:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1920
>>>
>>> However I don't think it was a good idea and I suggest to change the types back to VARCHAR(255) because the new TEXT type allows strings of any
>>> length; all other types definitions (MySQL, Derby etc...) are using VARCHAR(255) thus limiting the length of "comments" and "description" fields
>>> to 255 characters and now Postgres is the only one that is different.
>>>
>>> In my opinion we should set postgres to VARCHAR(255) too until we will decide to change the size for all the dbs.
>>>
>>> Any objections?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Deepak Dixit-3

Re: Should we revert 1530237?

+1

Thanks & Regards
--
Deepak Dixit

On Friday, August 21, 2015, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I made it, but agree consistency is better +1
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 21/08/2015 15:28, Arun Patidar a écrit :
>
>> +1.
>>
>> Thanks & Regards
>> ---
>> Arun Patidar
>> Manager,Enterprise Software Development
>> HotWax Systems
>> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>>
>> On Friday 21 August 2015 06:03 PM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>
>>> +1 It makes perfect sense to have consistent database "rules" across the
>>> different databases to reduce fragmentation and workarounds.
>>>
>>> Taher Alkhateeb
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: "Michael Brohl" <[hidden email]>
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Sent: Friday, 21 August, 2015 3:26:24 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Should we revert 1530237?
>>>
>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>
>>> I agree that the field length should be equal on every database to avoid
>>> migration problems if you change the database.
>>> So +1.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Michael Brohl
>>> ecomify GmbH
>>> www.ecomify.de
>>>
>>> Am 21.08.15 um 12:34 schrieb Jacopo Cappellato:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> in rev. 1530237 the sql type for Postgres for "comments" and
>>>> "description" fields was changed from VARCHAR(255) to TEXT:
>>>>
>>>> https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/ofbiz/?cs=1530237
>>>>
>>>> The original contribution and discussion can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1920
>>>>
>>>> However I don't think it was a good idea and I suggest to change the
>>>> types back to VARCHAR(255) because the new TEXT type allows strings of any
>>>> length; all other types definitions (MySQL, Derby etc...) are using
>>>> VARCHAR(255) thus limiting the length of "comments" and "description"
>>>> fields to 255 characters and now Postgres is the only one that is different.
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion we should set postgres to VARCHAR(255) too until we will
>>>> decide to change the size for all the dbs.
>>>>
>>>> Any objections?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

--
Thanks & Regards
--
Deepak Dixit
www.hotwaxsystems.com

Nicolas Malin-2

Re: Should we revert 1530237?

In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-5

Hello,

Jacopo you want also restore localpostnew file ? If it's the case +1

Nicolas

Le 21/08/2015 12:34, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

Jacopo Cappellato-5

Re: Should we revert 1530237?

Thanks for the feedback: I have changed back the field types in rev 1697590 (and rev. 1697593 for 14.12); I didn't add back the localpostnew file as it didn't seem important to me (considering the limited amount of changes in that file) and also because the name could be misleading (it is not "new" but just a different field type definition).

Kind regards,

Jacopo

On Aug 22, 2015, at 7:43 PM, Nicolas Malin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Jacopo you want also restore localpostnew file ? If it's the case +1
>
> Nicolas
>
> Le 21/08/2015 12:34, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> in rev. 1530237 the sql type for Postgres for "comments" and "description" fields was changed from VARCHAR(255) to TEXT:
>>
>> https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/ofbiz/?cs=1530237
>>
>> The original contribution and discussion can be found here:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1920
>>
>> However I don't think it was a good idea and I suggest to change the types back to VARCHAR(255) because the new TEXT type allows strings of any length; all other types definitions (MySQL, Derby etc...) are using VARCHAR(255) thus limiting the length of "comments" and "description" fields to 255 characters and now Postgres is the only one that is different.
>>
>> In my opinion we should set postgres to VARCHAR(255) too until we will decide to change the size for all the dbs.
>>
>> Any objections?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>