Thanks, got it now. Yes I think that would have value; my impression
is that taking care of such things is a general expectations among
users.
In case it had to truncate[shorten?] identifier names we'd also need
to make sure that doesn't introduce ambiguities with other column
names, and - as a use
He is talking about native (sql) queries. If a user defines a native query
using his example column name MY_SUPER_AWESOME_COLUMN_NAME_CANT_ALWAYS_BE_USED,
then when we replace that because they deploy on to "database product X"
which limits identifier lengths to 10... he worries that the users que
Hi Max, could you make an example please?
Looks like you are interpreting Steve's email in a different way than me.
On 24 Jul 2015 21:43, "Max Rydahl Andersen" wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2015, at 16:48, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
> > Do we want to consider automatically applying known database limits on
> >
On 24 Jul 2015, at 16:48, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Do we want to consider automatically applying known database limits on
> various identifier lengths? This is trickier to implement than it
> might
> sound. And it would definitely need to wait for the reworking of
> annotation binding. But in g
Do we want to consider automatically applying known database limits on
various identifier lengths? This is trickier to implement than it might
sound. And it would definitely need to wait for the reworking of
annotation binding. But in general I wonder if y'all see this as a
desirable feature. A
