db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Veaceslav Chicu ...@infologic.fr>
Subject Re: boolean type
Date Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:04:28 GMT
maybe DB2 team can add support for BOOLEAN type too?
it will be very nice, compatible with INFORMIX, DERBY all IBM product
line will be SQL99 compatible

:)

Slavic

Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
> Yes, Boolean type was DISABLED while IBM owned Cloudscape. Cloudscape
> was in IBM fold for 3-4 years before it made it into open source. I
> suppose it made sense to IBM to have their database solutions as
> compatible as possible at that time.
> 
> Since Derby is open source now, it makes sense to follow the standard
> here... So, I am not against adding BOOLEAN type. But it would be good
> to investigate all relavent issues... like Myrna's question about Derby
> Client... My concern about boolean parameters...
> 
> I agree with Lance about not making this conditional, using a property
> or some other means.
> 
> Satheesh
> 
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
> 
> 
>>As I dig into this issue, it has become apparent that the BOOLEAN
>>datatype was removed so that Derby would be compatible with DB2. The
>>regression test lang/db2Compatibility.sql monitors this behavior.
>>
>>The IBM folks clearly invested a fair amount of effort in building a
>>DB2-compatible Derby. I don't want to simply undo that work. Would it
>>be reasonable to introduce a startup property which causes Derby to
>>operate in a DB2-compatible mode? The default for this property would
>>be false, but it might be useful for developers who want to use Derby
>>as a baby DB2.
>>
>>-Rick
>>
>>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have assigned this issue (bug 499) to myself. I plan to do the
>>>following:
>>>
>>>1) Re-enable the BOOLEAN datatype by removing the parser short-circuit.
>>>
>>>2) Re-enable the TRUE and FALSE literals.
>>>
>>>3) Add appropriate unit tests.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>-Rick
>>>
>>>Jeffrey Lichtman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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. . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course any new feature should have tests written for it. I didn't
>>>>mean that someone should hack out a line of code to enable a feature
>>>>without writing tests for it.
>>>>
>>>>Can't someone at IBM resurrect the tests for the boolean type? I
>>>>would expect them to be accessible in whatever source code control
>>>>system IBM uses. Or perhaps IBM considers the reinstatement of the
>>>>disabled features to be against their interests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                       -        Jeff Lichtman
>>>>                                swazoo@rcn.com
>>>>                                Check out Swazoo Koolak's Web
>>>>Jukebox at
>>>>                                http://swazoo.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message