[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-499?page=comments#action_12359711 ]
Kathey Marsden commented on DERBY-499:
--------------------------------------
Looks like good progress on Boolean.
Code Comments and questions
0)
I do kind of wish constant reorganization and partial addition of other new
types were in separate patches.
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?
// Experimental types. These codes will change when the Open Group
// publishes an addendum to the DRDA spec covering these
// datatypes.
public static final int DRDA_TYPE_BOOLEAN = 0xD0;
public static final int DRDA_TYPE_NBOOLEAN = 0xD1;
public static final int DRDA_TYPE_XML = 0xD2;
public static final int DRDA_TYPE_NXML = 0xD3;
public static final int DRDA_TYPE_NATCHAR = 0xD4;
public static final int DRDA_TYPE_NNATCHAR = 0xD5;
public static final int DRDA_TYPE_NATVARCHAR = 0xD6;
public static final int DRDA_TYPE_NNATVARCHAR = 0xD7;
public static final int DRDA_TYPE_LONGNATVARCHAR = 0xD8;
public static final int DRDA_TYPE_NLONGNATVARCHAR = 0xD9;
public static final int DRDA_TYPE_NATCLOB = 0xDA;
public static final int DRDA_TYPE_NNATCLOB = 0xDB;
// extensions to the db2 datatypes
public static final int DB2_SQLTYPE_BOOLEAN = 1000; // BOOLEAN
public static final int DB2_SQLTYPE_NBOOLEAN = 1001;
}
2)
DRDAConnThread comments
In readAndSetParams it looks like BOOLEAN is not being handled. Are the client
parameters still being sent as SMALLINT parameters?
Line 6576
I think rather than a makeint method in DRDAConnThread I would rather see a
writeByte(boolean b) method in DDMWriter similar to writeShort(boolean b),
changing
writer.writeByte( makeInt( (Boolean) val ) );
to
writer.writeByte((Boolean) val ).booleanValue() );
3)
There seem to be places in the client code that have case statements for all
the types, for example, many of the methods in CrossConverters. Does boolean
need to be handled in these cases?
4)
DatabaseMetadata.getTypeInfo() doesn't seem to return BOOLEAN/BIT. I think
there has to be a differentiation of the output based on the client JVM
version.
Test comments
5)
What client/server version combinations did you run the Compatibility tests?
5)
Would you consider adding a boolean column to an ij test in the netmats suite
like supersimple.sql to verify the ij formatting is ok and also provide some
testing with earlier clients that it is being sent as smallint for clients
other than derby 10.2 client?
6)
Should jdbcapi/parameterMapping.java be updated for the new type? I know it is
not junit but does provide a comprehensive picture of the type behaviour and
it shouldn't be too hard to add a type to that test.
7)
It seems more important than ever that we have at least some very basic
client/server compatibility testing with the the 10.1.1.0 release as part of
derbyall.
> Expose BOOLEAN datatype to end users
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-499
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-499
> Project: Derby
> Type: New Feature
> Components: SQL
> Versions: 10.1.1.0
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
> Assignee: Rick Hillegas
> Attachments: BooleanFS.html, bug499.diff, bug499_doc.zip
>
> Veaceslav Chicu started an email thread on 8 August 2005 titled "boolean
> type". He was disappointed that Derby doesn't support the ansi BOOLEAN
> datatype. On closer inspection, Derby does internally support this type but
> does not expose this support to end users.
> Derby should let users declare table columns of type BOOLEAN. This should be
> an indexable datatype.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
