It's an interesting suggestion. However, the normal users of this tool are used to supplying the driver JAR file at the command line so it would be changing the expected behaviour of the application.
Does that make sense? Thanks, Bryan On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Ian Darwin <i...@darwinsys.com> wrote: > > > On 2016-03-13 2:45 PM, Adam Wolk wrote: > >> >> >> >> I like the changes and the port now 'works' on my side. >> >> First impressions are not great: >> $ liquibase --changeLogFile=1.json --url="" updateSQL >> Unexpected error running Liquibase: java.lang.RuntimeException: Cannot >> find database driver: Driver class was not specified and could not be >> determined from the url () >> >> $ liquibase --changeLogFile=1.json >> --url="jdbc:mysql://localhost/dbname?useUnicode=true&characterEncoding=UTF-8" >> updateSQL >> Unexpected error running Liquibase: java.lang.RuntimeException: Cannot >> find database driver: com.mysql.jdbc.Driver >> >> 1.json is the content from >> http://www.liquibase.org/documentation/json_format.html >> >> Is there a way to test this port in a simple way? >> >> In theory, Java apps can ask for any JDBC driver at any time, and the > onus is on the user to ensure the driver is on the CLASSPATH. > > Since we don't know in advance which driver a user wants to use liquibase > with, it might make sense to brew up a small batch of ports for the various > drivers (half a dozen or so common ones) and have ports like this just > depend on all of them (none of the drivers is particularly huge). > >
