Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-ID: <1896202178.1122561859161.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:44:19 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Dag H. Wanvik (JIRA)" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Updated: (DERBY-477) JDBC client and embedded drivers differ
 wrt API subset supported
In-Reply-To: <780966727.1122561858541.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

     [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-477?page=3Dall ]

Dag H. Wanvik updated DERBY-477:
--------------------------------

    Attachment: api-diffs.txt

> JDBC client and embedded drivers differ wrt API subset supported
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>          Key: DERBY-477
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-477
>      Project: Derby
>         Type: Improvement
>   Components: JDBC, Network Server, Network Client
>     Versions: 10.1.1.0, 10.2.0.0, 10.1.1.1
>     Reporter: Dag H. Wanvik
>  Attachments: api-diffs.txt
>
> After having noticed some differences (mail url below) in Clob and
> Blob support, I did a walkthough of both drivers of things marked as
> "not implemented", "not supported", etc., to see how they align.
> [http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200507.mbox/%3c171=
11.57879.760051.226994@sun.com%3e],
> Below is a summary of my findings. I attach a file "api-diffs.txt"
> which shows all "not implemented" methods in the interfaces I looked
> at, also for those cases where the drivers are in agreement.
> Caveat 1: This is all based on visual inspection of the code only.
> Caveat 2: I mostly looked at the top-level API implementation code, so
> there may be cases where the cut-off occurs at a lower level in the
> code which I missed.
> Caveat 3: The client uses lots of different strings to signal that a
> method us not implemented; e.g. "Driver not capable", "Driver not
> capable": X", "Driver no capable" (sic), "not supported by server",
> "under construction", "JDBC 3 method called - not yet supported",
> "jdbc 2 method not yet implemented", "X is not supported". I may have
> missed some...
> On each line I list the method with signature, and status for the
> embedded driver and the client driver, in that order. I use "NI" to
> mark not implemented, and a "+" to mark (apparently) implemented.
> The next step should be to check the tests and the documentation, as
> soon as we agree on how the harminization should be carried out.
>                                                           Embedded Client
> Resultset#                                     =20
> getUnicodeStream(int columnIndex)                               NI   +
> getUnicodeStream(String columnName)                             NI   +
> updateBlob(int columnIndex, Blob x)                             +   NI
> updateBlob(String columnName, Blob x)                           +   NI
> updateClob(int columnIndex, Clob x)                             +   NI
> updateClob(String columnName, Clob x)                           +   NI
> CallableStatement#  =20
> getBlob(int i)                                                  NI   +  =
=20
> getBytes(int parameterIndex)                                    NI   +=20
> getClob(int i)                                                  NI   +=20
> registerOutParameter(int paramIndex, int sqlType,                        =
            =20
>                                  String typeName)               NI   +=C2=
=B2
> =C2=B2bug:does nothing!
> Should be filed as separate bug?
> Blob#
> setBinaryStream(long pos)                                       NI   +=C2=
=B9 =20
> setBytes(long pos, byte[] bytes)                                NI   +  =
=20
> setBytes(long pos, byte[] bytes, int offset, int len)           NI   +  =
=20
> truncate(long len)                                              NI   +  =
=20
> =C2=B9bug reported by Laurentz Albe
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200507.mbox/%3c8594=
14957.1121432109873.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org%3e
> Should be filed as separate bug?
> Clob#
> setAsciiStream(long pos)                                        NI   + =
=20
> setCharacterStream(long pos)                                    NI   + =
=20
> setString(long pos, String str)                                 NI   + =
=20
> setString(long pos, String str, int offset, int len)            NI   + =
=20
> truncate(long len)                                              NI   + =
=20
> PreparedStatement#
> setNull(int paramIndex, int sqlType, String typeName)           NI   +=C2=
=B3
> setUnicodeStream(int parameterIndex, InputStream x, int length) NI   +
> =C2=B3bug: ignores typename
> Should be filed as separate bug?
> DatabaseMetaData#
> getSuperTables(String catalog, String schemaPattern,=20
>                String tableNamePattern)                         NI  +
> getSuperTypes(String catalog, String schemaPattern,=20
>               String typeNamePattern)                           NI  +
> locatorsUpdateCopy()                                            NI  +
> getAttributes(String catalog, String schemaPattern,=20
>               String typeNamePattern,=20
>               String attributeNamePattern)                      NI  +

--=20
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira