db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lance J. Andersen" <Lance.Ander...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: boolean type
Date Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:40:40 GMT
We should also focus on sql:2003 compatibility, not just sql99

Regards
lance

Veaceslav Chicu wrote:

>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