Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <43986D07.6060600@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:27:35 -0800
From: Army <qozinx@sbcglobal.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040707
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-499) Expose BOOLEAN datatype to end
 users
References: <1775196183.1134028509374.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org>
 <43986AD3.2090709@sbcglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <43986AD3.2090709@sbcglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Army wrote:

 > I'll add my choice of XML ids as part of my XML patch, and other people
 > who implement other types can add the appropriate ids with their
 > patches, as well.

That is, until DRDA is updated to define the correct values, at which point the 
temporary values will all have to change to match DRDA.  That was implicit in my 
last email, but I thought I'd make it explicit here to avoid confusion.

Army

> Kathey Marsden (JIRA) wrote:
> 
>> 1)
>> My biggest question about  the patch are the new types and the 
>> assignment of these temporary codes.   Will these be finalized before 
>> 10.2? Why have some other types be added to the DRDATypes but not the 
>> SQL Types.  I was wondering if it might pose any conflict with work 
>> underway for XML?
> 
> 
> Good question--thanks for bringing this up, Kathey.  As it turns out, 
> I've actually been using different ids for XML which conflict with those 
> specified in this patch.
> 
> Since, as the comments in the code say, these values are temporary until 
> DRDA is updated to account for the new types, I don't think we need to 
> (nor want to) specify them all up front--it just makes for more things 
> we have to change down the road.  I think it'd be better if we only add 
> the constants for DRDA type and SQL type when their respective datatypes 
> are implemented.
> 
> So in this case, I think it's fine for Rick's patch to include the 
> following:
> 
>  >     public    static final int DRDA_TYPE_BOOLEAN = 0xD0;
>  >     public    static final int DRDA_TYPE_NBOOLEAN = 0xD1;
> 
>  >     public    static final  int DB2_SQLTYPE_BOOLEAN = 1000;     // 
> BOOLEAN
>  >     public    static final  int DB2_SQLTYPE_NBOOLEAN = 1001;
> 
> But it'd be best to leave the others off.  I'll add my choice of XML ids 
> as part of my XML patch, and other people who implement other types can 
> add the appropriate ids with their patches, as well.
> 
> Army