- 3,728,252 Users
- 2,245,583 Discussions
- 7,853,410 Comments
- 380.6K All Categories
- 16 Data
- 362.2K Big Data Appliance
- 7 Data Science
- 2.4K Databases
- 699 General Database Discussions
- 32 Multilingual Engine
- 499 MySQL Community Space
- 10 NoSQL Database
- 7.7K Oracle Database Express Edition (XE)
- 2.8K ORDS, SODA & JSON in the Database
- 426 SQLcl
- 69 SQL Developer Data Modeler
- 185.2K SQL & PL/SQL
- 21.1K SQL Developer
- 2.8K Development
- 3 Developer Projects
- 32 Programming Languages
- 136K Development Tools
- 18 DevOps
- 3K QA/Testing
- 388 Java
- 16 Java Learning Subscription
- 14 Database Connectivity
- 72 Java Community Process
- 3 Java 25
- 14 Java APIs
- 141.2K Java Development Tools
- 15 Java EE (Java Enterprise Edition)
- 153K Java Essentials
- 135 Java 8 Questions
- 86.2K Java Programming
- 79 Java Puzzle Ball
- 65.1K New To Java
- 1.7K Training / Learning / Certification
- 13.8K Java HotSpot Virtual Machine
- 18 Java SE
- 13.8K Java Security
- 4 Java User Groups
- 18 Programs
- 159 LiveLabs
- 36 Workshops
- 13 Software
- 7 Berkeley DB Family
- 3.5K JHeadstart
- 5.7K Other Languages
- 2.3K Chinese
- 4 Deutsche Oracle Community
- 19 Español
- 1.9K Japanese
- 4 Portuguese
OraOLEDB is still crazy
If there is no way to reply to archived discussions,
they don't seem to know that they tend to waste much time more than 120 days to solve the problems of their products.
(The reason why they archive discussions might be because they might know that the problems would be never solved.)
> In THIS APRIL(after March, 2015), we built the LATEST(*) 126.96.36.199 client environment.
> As a result, we found new behavior of OraOLEDB...
In the end of THIS SEPTEMBER, we build LATEST(*) 188.8.131.52 client environment.
*)You should ask Oracle Support how to update 184.108.40.206 client to latest revision.
As a result, we found new behavior of OraOLEDB...
---- our result ----
They seem to stop appending crazy blanks at last.
The value "202" of "Type" means "adVarWChar".
The number of characters of the value of CHAR(4 BYTE) is "less than or equal to" 4(VARIABLE-characters)
even though the number of bytes of the value is "just equal to" 4(FIXED-bytes)
when the encoding is JA16SJISTILDE(VARIABLE-width 2 byte character set).
Had they recovered their senses?
Why do they still believe that DefinedSize of "EQ" must be "2"?
Why do they cause inconsistencies to cause inconsistencies?