db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [jira] Created: (DERBY-695) Re-enable the TINYINT datatype
Date Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:38:37 GMT
One could argue that adding TINYINT support makes it harder to migrate 
applications from Derby *to* Oracle and DB2.  But it seems to me this is 
easily mitigated by clearly documenting that this type is not supported 
by databases X,Y,Z and thus should be avoided if your plan is to migrate 
to that database in the future.

David

Lance J. Andersen wrote:
> I am for adding this datatype back.  While it may not be part of the SQL 
> Standard, it is a common datatype supported by multiple vendors.  Having 
> this datatype supported helps with the migration of applications and at 
> the end of the day making it easier for applications to migrate is more 
> important than basing a decision soley on whether the datatype is 
> supported by the SQL standards.
> 
> +1 (unofficial vote) for this addition
> 
> Rick Hillegas (JIRA) wrote:
> 
>> Re-enable the TINYINT datatype
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>         Key: DERBY-695
>>         URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-695
>>     Project: Derby
>>        Type: New Feature
>>    Reporter: Rick Hillegas
>>
>>
>> I would like to collect here the arguments for and against re-enabling 
>> the TINYINT datatype. Once this discussion calms down, we can schedule 
>> a vote on the issue.
>>
>> Background: Cloudscape used to support the TINYINT datatype, which was 
>> an 8 bit int. This datatype was hidden from customers as part of an 
>> effort to remove all datatypes not supported by DB2. Re-enabling the 
>> datatype would not require a lot of effort. Some arguments for and 
>> against re-enabling this datatype can be found on the November 2005 
>> email thread titled "New features for next release .... (Was: Grant 
>> and Revoke ... DERBY-464...)".
>>
>> Here are the arguments in favor so far:
>>
>> + This datatype is defined by one of our key standards, JDBC. It is in 
>> JDBC 2, 3, and 4, all of the JDBC revs supported by Derby 10.2.
>> + This datatype is supported by some important databases, including 
>> MySQL, Microsoft SQL Server, and Sybase.
>>
>> Here are the arguments against so far:
>>
>> - This datatype is not defined by our other key standard, ANSI SQL. 
>> Here our two main standards diverge.
>> - This datatype is not supported by some important databases, 
>> including Oracle, DB2, and (some) Informix databases.
>>
>> Against this proposal, it was also argued that there was some sort of 
>> friction with ODBC. I do not understand this argument: SQL_TINYINT is 
>> an ODBC datatype. See 
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/odbc/htm/odbcsql_data_types.asp.

>>
>>
>> A friction with .NET was also suggested but I don't understand this 
>> either. "byte" and "Sbyte" are the .NET 8-bit integer types. See 
>> http://www.codersource.net/csharp_tutorial_data_types.html.
>>
>> A friction with Perl was also suggested but I don't understand this 
>> either.
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>

Mime
View raw message