Ahhh, hm if that's the case then I'm fine with it. I definitely would agree that H2 works "good enough" as is and that the issue would be only on very low priority. And also that backward compatiblity of such a change would be a problem, maybe only allowing it to be an optional setting or so.
Ya, well, I can understand that the pressure from everyone screaming "it's wrong and I need it fixed RIGHT NOW" lets the poor guy on the other side develop a defensive attitude of fending of as much screams as reasonably possible. My intention however was to only discuss / get a confirmation for the problem as a first step, no screaming at all. I think as long as there's no initial confirmation, there's not much sense in officially creating a feature request or something that would just get closed right away. But if even the first reaction is just "no all is fine, go away", than it gets a little frustrating. Confirming an issue as "ok it's a problem, but honstely it's very low" would make a totally different impression. Anyway I might even do the thing with the patch. My little research when throwing a first look into the source code for the other two issues around went so well that I actually consider investing some time into H2 issues I find myself (if I can find it ^^). Thank you for your explanation :) On Dec 11, 7:40 am, Rami Ojares <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Thomas' answer should be interpreted as: works reasonably, not high > on the priority list. So make a patch with test cases and it will be fixed. > I give +1 for consistent behavior but the only problem with the fix is that > it is not backward compatible. > On Dec 11, 2011 12:15 AM, "Paigan Jadoth" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Oh, I didn't notice you answered on this back then. > > > Hm. > > While I respect your answer, I can't see where it is reasonable to > > bend the DB's standard meaning of "default schema" to "currently being > > created object's schema". Especially when providing no argument at all > > in the response ^^. > > Nevertheless, thanks for the answer. I already resigned to the fact > > that H2 can't be safely used with the implicit default schema and > > changed my code accordingly. > > > On Nov 2, 8:06 pm, Thomas Mueller <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I think H2 behaves in a reasonable way in this regard, and I don't > > > plan to change the behavior, sorry. > > > > I will reconsider this position if there are compatibility problems > > > with other databases. > > > > Regards, > > > Thomas > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "H2 Database" 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/h2-database?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" 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/h2-database?hl=en.
