Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 06:57:43 -0700
From: Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: behavior of Statement.getGeneratedKeys()
In-reply-to: <44B332CF.6000604@sbcglobal.net>
Sender: Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <44B3AE57.2030403@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <44B29397.4030608@sun.com> <44B2A411.3050000@sbcglobal.net>
 <44B2B783.1090102@sun.com> <44B2CE1F.4030800@apache.org>
 <44B2E248.3080904@sun.com> <44B332CF.6000604@sbcglobal.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)

Kathey Marsden wrote:

> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Is this a bug? Should Statement.getGeneratedKeys() return a
>>>>>> ResultSet whose column has the same type as the underyling
>>>>>> autogenerated column?
>>>>>>
> Reading from the JDBC 3.0 and JDBC  4.0 spec it seems clear to me that 
> we are not compliant and if non-compliance is a bug, this is  a bug.   
> The spec says: "Calling ResultSet.getMetaData on the ResultSet object 
> returned by getGeneratedKeys will produce a ResultSetMetaData object 
> that can be used to determine the number, type and properties of the 
> generated keys."
>
>>>>>> 2) If this is a bug, is it permitted to change this behavior in a
>>>>>> minor release?
>>>>>>
>
> Of course debate continues,  but I think it would be first good to 
> objectively assess what JDBC calls might be affected.    Perhaps 
> whomever is considering making this change could do  a  thorough 
> analysis and present it to the community. After that we could use this 
> issue as a test case for  our goal  at 
> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ForwardCompatibility  as we look at 
> potential risk and what level of consultation is needed with the user 
> community for the change and when it is appropriate.  It should be a 
> good test as our current documented behavior and the spec are at odds.

Hi Kathey,

I'm muddled. The affected JDBC call is Statement.getGeneratedKeys(). I 
don't think anyone is proposing to change the behavior of any other JDBC 
call. But your question makes me anxious. Why do you think other JDBC 
calls are affected?

>
> Kathey
>
>