I raised this as a clarification issue with the EG so that we can have
a discussion on this.
My hope is to close on this within the next week.
I am trying to clean-up issues like this for JDBC 4. However, some
issues might not get addressed until after the first EDR. I hope to
address as many gray areas as i can, time permitting before JDBC 4 goes
final.
Regards
Lance
Army wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
>> Now as Lance has pointed out then the JDBC metadata is meant to match
>> the ODBC metadata, so hopefully the complete defintion of what 'length'
>> means in each case can be found.
>
>
> Does this mean that, until JDBC defines something further, it's okay
> to just return the values as defined by the ODBC specification? If
> so, that'd certainly make my life easier (:), since ODBC nicely
> dictates what the values are all supposed to be in the Appendix
> mentioned by Lance:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/odbc/htm/odbctransfer_octet_length.asp
>
>
> Can I just use those values, or is that taking the expression "meant
> to match the ODBC metadata" a bit too far?
>
>> Yes, and most likely getApproximateLengthInBytes() is not correct for
>> your use.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Some cleanup is probably needed in Derby's internal datatypes api to
>> clearly define what each get length or get size method is defined to
>> return.
>
>
> Is this something that should be included in the BUFFER_LENGTH patch
> that I'm working on, or is this more of a "someone should do this
> someday" suggestion?
>
> Thanks for the feedback,
> Army
>
|