MySQL Lists are EOL. Please join:

List:MySQL and .NET« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Barry Zubel Date:October 21 2004 4:27pm
Subject:Re: Stability for 4.0
View as plain text  

Pull the connector-net source from the mysql website.

Open as a standalone project, then open Field.cs.

At line 263 (just after the closing braces) insert:

--- CODE ---
colValue.IsNull = false;
--- CODE END ---

Recompile into a release DLL, then reference THAT dll in your project.

It seems to work like a charm. I've certainly not come across any 
insurmountable problems with it yet.

I believe for Mysql4.1 compatibility, you'd have to make a similar 
change around Line 77 of Field41.cs, but I've only *very briefly* 
glanced over the code there, so YMMV.


Guy Platt wrote:
> Barry,
> Interested in the patch, although my experience with the VERY buggy 
> Bitkeeper build I did had forced me back to 0.76 and made me realize 
> that I need an automated testing tool. I got really screwed when the 
> null bug was replaced with a bug which returned the previous rows values 
> when it encountered null values. Very painful bug that I'm still 
> recovering from.
> cheers
>  Guy
> Barry Zubel said the following wise words on 2004-10-21 6:06 PM:
>> I'd recommend 1.0.0_beta1, incorporating the 'Null Column Dataset' 
>> bugfix.
>> We're actually using it in a 20 person multi-user enviroment 
>> currently, and apart from the speed (which still isn't shabby, but 
>> could be improved to 0.76 speeds) it works very well.
>> There isn't a 'build' available currently that includes the bugfix, 
>> and actually compiles, but its merely a case of downloading the 
>> 1.0.0_beta1 source and adding a single line into a single file.
>> If you want details of the patch, give me a shout.
>> B.
>> Jordan Sparks wrote:
>>> I have a MySQL-based program that hundreds of customers depend on to run
>>> perfectly every day.  But for the last two months, none of them have
>>> been able to backup their databases because SHOW CREATE TABLE does not
>>> work.  I'm really stuck here, and I'm becoming very concerned that my
>>> customers will suffer from lost data and not have a backup.  I can't use
>>> Connector version 0.76 because of that bug, but I also don't know if I
>>> should jump right in to version 1.0 because it seems like many other
>>> bugs were introduced.  I need a stable version and I need it now.  I'm
>>> not complaining, but I just wanted you to know how strongly I feel about
>>> this.  I think it should be much higher priority to support version 4.0
>>> rather than trying to add all these extra features for 4.1 or 5.0.  You
>>> can't ever ever let the quality of the connector slip on the current
>>> version.
>>> So... is it safe to use 1.0, and can you guarantee that it will be as
>>> rock solid as 0.76?  Or should I beg you to fix 0.76 instead?
>>> Jordan Sparks

Hung datareaderTHOULON Pierre-Yves18 Oct
  • Re: Hung datareaderReggie Burnett20 Oct
RE: Hung datareaderTHOULON Pierre-Yves21 Oct
  • Stability for 4.0Jordan Sparks21 Oct
    • Re: Stability for 4.0Barry Zubel21 Oct
      • Re: Stability for 4.0Reggie Burnett21 Oct
        • Re: Stability for 4.0Barry Zubel22 Oct
Re: Stability for 4.0Barry Zubel21 Oct