db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel John Debrunner (JIRA)" <derby-...@db.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-570) wrong java.sql.Type id implied for LONG VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2006 20:04:05 GMT
    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-570?page=comments#action_12365118 ] 

Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-570:

No java.lang.Byte is wrong.

I was going to say look at VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA, but it doesn't have a compile type section.

I would match VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA and CHAR FOR BIT data by not having a compile time type.

I actually think we could remove the compile time java types for  all the data types, I have
no idea
what it is meant to mean. Mappings between SQL types and Java types should be covered elsewhere.
That's probably a separate cleanup though.

> wrong java.sql.Type id implied for LONG VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>          Key: DERBY-570
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-570
>      Project: Derby
>         Type: Bug
>   Components: Documentation
>     Versions:
>     Reporter: Rick Hillegas
>  Attachments: derby570-2.diff, derby570.diff, rrefsqlj30118.html
> The Datatypes section of the Reference Manual says that LONG VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA is
identical to VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA but does not give a jdbc type, implying that LONG VARCHAR
FOR BIT DATA has the same jdbc type as VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA, i.e., VARBINARY. This section
should say that LONG VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA has the following jdbc type: LONGVARBINARY.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message