db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: boolean type
Date Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:37:08 GMT
Hi Kathey,

It seems to me that Suresh's response on the "paging Satheesh" thread 
applies here too. The BOOLEAN type was only disabled at the language 
level and has continued to be supported at the Store level. Several 
system tables, in fact, have BOOLEAN columns: sysconglomerates, 
sysstatements, sysaliases, systriggers, and sysstatistics. So there 
shouldn't be any on-disk downgrade issues if we re-enable BOOLEAN.

Cheers,
-Rick

Kathey Marsden wrote:

>Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On 8/9/05, Jeffrey Lichtman <swazoo@rcn.com> wrote: 
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>This looks to me like an edge case. Rather than disable an entire
>>>>datatype, I'd recommend logging bugs on these edge cases. Unless
>>>>code archeology at IBM discloses some serious problem like data
>>>>corruption, I would recommend re-enabling the BOOLEAN datatype.
>>>>
>>>>-Rick
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I agree.
>>>
>>>I have looked at the parser, datatype code and JDBC implementation,
>>>and I don't see where anything is missing. Cloudscape used to have a
>>>full implementation of boolean before IBM disabled a bunch of
>>>features. This included the use of "?" parameters, boolean
>>>expressions, et al. It looks to me like all IBM did was put one line
>>>of code in the parser to prevent the use of the boolean type except
>>>for internal purposes. Unless I'm mistaken, it should be possible to
>>>completely re-enable the feature by eliminating that one line of code.
>>>
>>>The line of code is:
>>>
>>>checkInternalFeature(TypeId.BOOLEAN_NAME);
>>>
>>>in the dataTypeCommon() rule.
>>>
>>>- Jeff Lichtman
>>>swazoo@rcn.com
>>>Check out Swazoo Koolak's Web Jukebox at
>>>http://swazoo.com/
>>>
>>> Yes, at IBM the Boolean type was disabled. I haven't done the 
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>archeology, but disabling was not done because of some horrendous known bug 
>>in this area.
>>However, before someone undisables the lines identified by Jeff, I will 
>>mention that more work than meets the eye went into it - at least into 
>>adjusting the tests. Many of the tests are intended to test functionality 
>>with every single datatype. When the Boolean datatype was disabled, all 
>>these tests had to be modified and usage of Boolean is thus *nowhere* tested 
>>anymore, and if reinstated, testing should be rewritten.
>>Also, the derbyclient probably has no support for Boolean datatype.
>>Myrna
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>I am not too up  on what is  or is  not needed for BOOLEAN,   but if
>someone puts it  in,  pretty please don't forget that soft upgrade check #:)
>
>Thanks
>
>Kathey
>
>
>  
>



Mime
View raw message