db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tomohito Nakayama (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1942) There exists difference between behavior of setNull(Types.TIME) and setTiime(null).
Date Sat, 09 Jun 2007 02:10:26 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12502986
] 

Tomohito Nakayama commented on DERBY-1942:
------------------------------------------

Application still can use TIME data type in some situation ...
The situation application can still use TIME data type is the case information of date is
not needed ....

How about this ?
Applications using the TIME data type must use the TIMESTAMP data type instead,
if date information is needed besides time information.

> There exists difference between behavior of  setNull(Types.TIME) and setTiime(null).
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-1942
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1942
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: JDBC
>            Reporter: Tomohito Nakayama
>            Assignee: Tomohito Nakayama
>             Fix For: 10.3.0.0
>
>         Attachments: DERBY-1942.patch, releaseNote.html, releaseNote_reviewed.html
>
>
> The result of setNull(java.sql.Types.TIME) for TIMESTAMP typed variable is regarded as
error.
> However, the result of setTime(null) for TIMESTAMP typed variable is not regarded as
error . 
> see http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1610#action_12436554

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message