Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:54:16 -0400
From: "Lance J. Andersen" <Lance.Andersen@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: JDBC auto-commit semantics challenge
In-reply-to: <42BFEF39.9000002@acadiau.ca>
To: Derby Development <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-id: <42C58348.90202@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2)
 Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
References: <42BFEF39.9000002@acadiau.ca>

I am just getting back from J1 and I have a quite a few emails to wade 
through.  If/when you hace a cycle, if you can summarize the issues 
outstanding, i can look at it and discuss with the EG.  There are sooo 
many emails from derby-dev, it is going to take me quite some time to 
digest it all.

lance

Philip Wilder wrote:

> Lance, It would appear that the setAutoCommit javadoc for JDBC 4.0 and 
> the javadoc used for J2SE 1.4.2 (I assume JDBC 3.0) are identical so 
> I'm afraid they can shed no light on the subject.
>
> Dan, the footnotes were removed as they do not translate particularly 
> well to a plain text format. I do apologize for zapping the footnote 
> regarding your the difference between the JDBC spec and the javadocs. 
> That should have stayed.
>
> For anyone just tuning into this email thread the comment went 
> something like this:
>
> "[The advanced case] definition complies with the JDK 1.4.1 
> interpretation of the JDBC implementation which differs from the JDBC 
> 3.0 specifications. Thanks to Daniel Debrunner for pointing this out."
>
> Philip Wilder
>
> Lance Anderson wrote:
>
> > i have not had the bandwidth to follow this thread due to J1 and a 
> few other fire drills.  We have > made changes to the spec and 
> javadocs in JDBC 4 to clarify things in these areas.  Please take a > 
> look and see if there is still something you feel needs clarified.
>
> Kathey Marsden wrote:
>
>> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>> I think you dropped the footnotes that you had in the pdf document.
>>> The note that talked about JDBC 3.0 spec did not mention output
>>> parameters for auto commit on callable statements.
>>>
>>> I would challenge that the text from JDBC 3.0 spec, section 10.1 is the
>>> definitive behaviour, not the javadoc of setAutoCommit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> So  does that make that a bug in the setAutoCommit javadoc?  Lance do
>> you have an opinon here?
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>