Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
Hi Rick,

Rick Hillegas wrote:

  
We will probably have to collaborate here. If you select an XML
column, the ResultSetMetaData needs to say that the column is of type
java.sql.SQLXML. This, at least, was the consensus of the community
which prevented me from re-enabling the BOOLEAN datatype a couple
months ago: Kathey and David pointed out that it was not OK for
ResultSetMetaData to report a boolean column's type as SMALLINT.
Similarly, it's not going to be OK for ResultSetMetaData to report the
type of an XML column as java.sql.LONGVARCHAR.
    

It doesn't seem right to expose a JDBC 4.0 type to a JDBC 3.0 client.
What good would that do, since JDBC 3.0 clients are probably written to
expect JDBC 3.0 functionality only? I wonder if we might even break GUIs
and other generic tools that expect 3.0 types only. Since we may be
close to enabling full JDBC 4.0 in the near term, why not expose only
JDBC 3.0 types to 3.0 clients? That is to expose XML type as a CLOB
under JDBC 3.0 and as SQLXML for a JDBC 4.0 client. This would expose a
new type to Derby server, XML, to JDBC by mapping it to it's closest
match. Remember the TINYINT discussion and Dan's point?
  
A JDBC 3 driver should not return SQLXML as a type in ResultSetMetaData.

I am not sure TINYINT is the same discussion though as JDBC has provided support for this since JDBC 1.0.x.

A JDBC 3 driver should only return results defined in classes for the given version of JDBC and since JDBC 3 did not have SQLXML in java.sql.Types, you need to return a different value.
I don't remember what was discussed about this during the BOOLEAN
discussion... but if JDBC already supports a boolean type, that would
seem correct to map it to, rather than say SMALLINT.
  
Correct, if the datatype is in Types.java and the backend datatype is also there, they should map to the same (unless there is something major league wrong with what the meaning of the type is on the backend)

Regards
Lance
Satheesh