Mailing-List: contact user-java-help@ibatis.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user-java@ibatis.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of arthomps@gmail.com designates
 66.249.92.173 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=eVFNhI76StUDT8cVRCLfzyz/d6T2qF7WottM5oe6QdrP2AYkT6QPzvVgiuj132KENvqBIXbMUUOzvRgfkk4dIPu9jCO1RsfzcCww+1g2Dhx62wugl5QRQzna6L5KjfZT7QBotsq79zLcYqrdYJTr4NI7o5A60dOxe6qc/nWOzi8=
Message-ID: <94c6c2b70702151525k7a43b5dftf0f035f031446e5f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:25:34 -0500
From: "Andy Thompson" <arthomps@gmail.com>
To: user-java@ibatis.apache.org
Subject: Re: silly question regarding cast from char to int
In-Reply-To: <c593b8750702151425y8546d43xa41589d8c5dac92e@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_54362_3450016.1171581934103"
References: <94c6c2b70702151411s4ad497bbs65cbd3862d75fcd7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c593b8750702151425y8546d43xa41589d8c5dac92e@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_54362_3450016.1171581934103
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

thanks jeff,

i was expecting that - it pains me though.  i was hoping to reuse the dao
code base across multiple datasources.  this makes that less elegant because
i can't assume the other datasources will have that same bad database
design.

-andy

On 2/15/07, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The easiest resolution is to store numbers in number fields in the
> database!  But I understand if you can't change the database.
>
> It's really best to change the DAOs.  As an alternative, you could change
> the SQL with some database specific code.  For example, in DB2 you could do
> this:
>
> select *
> from some_table
> where integer(database_id) = #java_id#
>
> However be warned that this is a very poor performer and will cause table
> scans.  So it's best to change it in the DAO.
>
> Jeff Butler
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/15/07, Andy Thompson <arthomps@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > in my database - i've got a value that's of type char.  for example
> > "0000009".  the dao is passing back a request by id where id is 9.  So
> > there's no match.
> >
> > so select * from some_column where database_id = #java_id# returns
> > null.  but select * from some_column where database_id="0000009" returns
> > true.
> >
> > I'd prefer to not have to modify the dao making the request to add 0s to
> > it cause that seems dumb and I can't change the database.
> > what's the easiest resolution here?
> >
> > --
> > Andrew R. Thompson
> > Currently in D.C. Consulting
>
>
>


-- 
Andrew R. Thompson
Currently in D.C. Consulting

------=_Part_54362_3450016.1171581934103
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

thanks jeff,<br><br>i was expecting that - it pains me though.&nbsp; i was hoping to reuse the dao code base across multiple datasources.&nbsp; this makes that less elegant because i can&#39;t assume the other datasources will have that same bad database design.
<br><br>-andy<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/15/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jeff Butler</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:jeffgbutler@gmail.com">jeffgbutler@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>The easiest resolution is to&nbsp;store&nbsp;numbers in number fields in the database!&nbsp; But I understand if you can&#39;t change the database.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>It&#39;s really best to change the DAOs.&nbsp; As an alternative, you could change the SQL with some database specific code.&nbsp; For example, in DB2 you could do this:</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>select *</div>
<div>from some_table</div>
<div>where integer(database_id) = #java_id#</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>However be warned that this is a very poor performer and will cause table scans.&nbsp; So it&#39;s best to change it in the DAO.</div><span class="sg">
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Jeff Butler</div></span><div><span class="e" id="q_110c782c048cd2f2_2">
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/15/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andy Thompson</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:arthomps@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">arthomps@gmail.com</a>
&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">in my database - i&#39;ve got a value that&#39;s of type char.&nbsp; for example &quot;0000009&quot;.&nbsp; the dao is passing back a request by id where id is 9.&nbsp; So there&#39;s no match.
<br><br>so select * from some_column where database_id = #java_id# returns null.&nbsp; but select * from some_column where database_id=&quot;0000009&quot; returns true. <br>&nbsp; <br>I&#39;d prefer to not have to modify the dao making the request to add 0s to it cause that seems dumb and I can&#39;t change the database.&nbsp; 
<br>what&#39;s the easiest resolution here?<br clear="all"><span><br>-- <br>Andrew R. Thompson<br>Currently in D.C. Consulting </span></blockquote></div><br>
</span></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Andrew R. Thompson<br>Currently in D.C. Consulting

------=_Part_54362_3450016.1171581934103--