Text 5369, 284 rader
Skriven 2005-06-24 16:17:30 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 5367 av Mike '/m' (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: oracle returning wrong data to mike, again
======================================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C578D8.38F0A050
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
No, the ODBC SQLStatistics API does not identify the primary index =
just as I stated earlier. The level 2 API you suggest SQLPrimaryKeys is =
buggy.
If oracle is returning the correct data why were you complaining that =
you get the wrong data? Why are you so steadfast in refusing to support = your
assertion with anything more than repeated assertion?
Rich
"Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message =
news:th0pb1lvtlskallhmns5ji6ns2cn5k1rn9@4ax.com...
You're really not suggesting that MS Access uses the wrong API because
it is buggy? That's hilarious.
Previously you said, "The ODBC API doesn't identify the primary =
index."
Now you post saying that the ODBC API does identify the Primary index.
You really should stick to one story.
Additionally, MS SQL server also has the same problem, (unless of
course, the KB article was wrong, as you say about the security
article). So it is not a matter of Oracle returning bad data. Once =
we
worked around the ODBC API problem, Oracle is returning precisely the
correct data.
/m
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:19:11 -0700, "Rich" <@> wrote:
> Nice spin on own your earlier attempts to lay blame for you =
getting bad results from your oracle database. We can ignore that which =
index if any is the "primary" index is not relevant despite you trying = to
assert a connection. What you fail to mention about that thread is = that
beside your assertion and your repeated attempts to spread blame = elsewhere
you never identified what was wrong, what you changed to get = the correct
results from oracle, and some evidence to support your = disparaging
statements. Do you really want to discuss why your make = disparaging remarks
but make a diversion when asked to back up your = claims?
>
> As for your new attempts to question why SQLPrimaryKeys may not be =
used, a simple answer is that it is often buggy, its level 2 not level = 1, and
other than UI to display a linked table's definition it doesn't = matter. See
=
http://support.borland.com/entry.jspa?externalID=3D1623&categoryID=3D333 = for
an example of it returning incorrect results for oracle. See =
http://community.borland.com/article/0,1410,25091,0.html for an example = of it
returning incorrect results for interbase. You probably should = avoid calling
SQLPrimaryKeys for mysql too. See = http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=3D3797.
>
>Rich
>
> "Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message =
news:v4dmb15fampi1025tim8ssifm43kqusg1f@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 06:24:23 -0400, "Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Cuccia" <jcuccia@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >news:u1djb1dkjvvqk9j4clgajl86tuhtsott6j@4ax.com...
> >> Well, I've read the thread between you and Geo and I am =
confused.
> >>
> >> Would you mind explaining again, please?
> >
> >He's worried that if he explains in plain terms that it might be =
news (I
> >would think deliberately inaccurate security bulletins would be a =
news
> >worthy item) and he might get quoted and then he might get in =
trouble for
> >telling the truth when it's pretty obvious that MS isn't =
interested in the
> >truth being known.
> >
> >I don't want Rich to ever get in trouble for talking to us, do =
you?
>
> I'd never want anyone to get into trouble for what is posted here. =
>
> I am just not convinced that is Rich's reason for being so =
obstinate
> here. He was similarly obstinate when I brought up the problem =
with MS
> Access returning the wrong data via an ODBC connection. He even =
said
> that the ODBC API doesn't identify the primary index, even though =
there
> is an SQLPrimaryKeys ODBC call which does return the primary key. =
I
> even posted a link to that ODBC call on Microsoft's site. Why =
doesn't
> MS Access use it, instead of posting a "working as designed" KB =
article.
>
> When I tried to get clarification on that thread, all I received =
was the
> similar barrage of ad hominem insults that I have been receiving =
here on
> the buffer overrun topic.
>
> On the other hand, if Rich does not want to have to answer =
questions in
> threads because he may fear being quoted, as you say, then maybe it
> would be better for him to just stay out of the thread or not =
answer the
> questions, instead of throwing insults. =20
>
> /m
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C578D8.38F0A050
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> No, the ODBC SQLStatistics =
API does=20
not identify the primary index just as I stated earlier. The level = 2
API=20
you suggest SQLPrimaryKeys is buggy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> If oracle is returning the =
correct=20
data why were you complaining that you get the wrong data? Why are = you
so=20
steadfast in refusing to support your assertion with anything more than =
repeated=20
assertion?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Mike '/m'" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:mike@barkto.com">mike@barkto.com</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:th0pb1lvtlskallhmns5ji6ns2cn5k1rn9@4ax.com">news:th0pb1lvtls=
kallhmns5ji6ns2cn5k1rn9@4ax.com</A>...</DIV><BR>You're=20
really not suggesting that MS Access uses the wrong API because<BR>it =
is=20
buggy? That's hilarious.<BR><BR>Previously you said, "The ODBC =
API=20
doesn't identify the primary index."<BR>Now you post saying that the =
ODBC API=20
does identify the Primary index.<BR>You really should stick to one=20
story.<BR><BR>Additionally, MS SQL server also has the same problem, =
(unless=20
of<BR>course, the KB article was wrong, as you say about the=20
security<BR>article). So it is not a matter of Oracle =
returning=20
bad data. Once we<BR>worked around the ODBC API problem, Oracle =
is=20
returning precisely the<BR>correct data.<BR><BR> /m<BR><BR><BR>On =
Fri, 24=20
Jun 2005 00:19:11 -0700, "Rich" <@> =
wrote:<BR><BR>> Nice=20
spin on own your earlier attempts to lay blame for you getting bad =
results=20
from your oracle database. We can ignore that which index if any =
is the=20
"primary" index is not relevant despite you trying to assert a=20
connection. What you fail to mention about that thread is that =
beside=20
your assertion and your repeated attempts to spread blame elsewhere =
you never=20
identified what was wrong, what you changed to get the correct results =
from=20
oracle, and some evidence to support your disparaging =
statements. Do you=20
really want to discuss why your make disparaging remarks but make a =
diversion=20
when asked to back up your claims?<BR>><BR>> As for =
your new=20
attempts to question why SQLPrimaryKeys may not be used, a simple =
answer is=20
that it is often buggy, its level 2 not level 1, and other than UI to =
display=20
a linked table's definition it doesn't matter. See <A=20
=
href=3D"http://support.borland.com/entry.jspa?externalID=3D1623&categ=
oryID=3D333">http://support.borland.com/entry.jspa?externalID=3D1623&=
categoryID=3D333</A>=20
for an example of it returning incorrect results for oracle. See =
<A=20
=
href=3D"http://community.borland.com/article/0,1410,25091,0.html">http://=
community.borland.com/article/0,1410,25091,0.html</A>=20
for an example of it returning incorrect results for interbase. =
You=20
probably should avoid calling SQLPrimaryKeys for mysql too. See =
<A=20
=
href=3D"http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=3D3797">http://bugs.mysql.com/bu=
g.php?id=3D3797</A>.<BR>><BR>>Rich<BR>><BR>> =20
"Mike '/m'" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:mike@barkto.com">mike@barkto.com</A>> wrote=20
in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:v4dmb15fampi1025tim8ssifm43kqusg1f@4ax.com">news:v4dmb15famp=
i1025tim8ssifm43kqusg1f@4ax.com</A>...<BR>> =20
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 06:24:23 -0400, "Geo" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>>=20
wrote:<BR>><BR>> >"John Cuccia" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:jcuccia@bigfoot.com">jcuccia@bigfoot.com</A>> wrote =
in=20
message<BR>> =20
>news:u1djb1dkjvvqk9j4clgajl86tuhtsott6j@4ax.com...<BR>> =
>>=20
Well, I've read the thread between you and Geo and I am=20
confused.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Would you mind =
explaining again, please?<BR>> ><BR>> >He's =
worried=20
that if he explains in plain terms that it might be news =
(I<BR>> =20
>would think deliberately inaccurate security bulletins would be a=20
news<BR>> >worthy item) and he might get quoted and then =
he might=20
get in trouble for<BR>> >telling the truth when it's =
pretty=20
obvious that MS isn't interested in the<BR>> >truth being=20
known.<BR>> ><BR>> >I don't want Rich to ever =
get in=20
trouble for talking to us, do you?<BR>><BR>> I'd never =
want anyone=20
to get into trouble for what is posted here. =
<BR>><BR>> I am=20
just not convinced that is Rich's reason for being so =
obstinate<BR>> =20
here. He was similarly obstinate when I brought up the problem =
with=20
MS<BR>> Access returning the wrong data via an ODBC =
connection. =20
He even said<BR>> that the ODBC API doesn't identify the =
primary=20
index, even though there<BR>> is an SQLPrimaryKeys ODBC call =
which=20
does return the primary key. I<BR>> even posted a link =
to that=20
ODBC call on Microsoft's site. Why doesn't<BR>> MS =
Access use=20
it, instead of posting a "working as designed" KB=20
article.<BR>><BR>> When I tried to get clarification on =
that=20
thread, all I received was the<BR>> similar barrage of ad =
hominem=20
insults that I have been receiving here on<BR>> the buffer =
overrun=20
topic.<BR>><BR>> On the other hand, if Rich does not want =
to have=20
to answer questions in<BR>> threads because he may fear being =
quoted,=20
as you say, then maybe it<BR>> would be better for him to =
just stay=20
out of the thread or not answer the<BR>> questions, instead =
of=20
throwing insults. <BR>><BR>> =20
/m<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C578D8.38F0A050--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|