Army wrote:
> I'll add my choice of XML ids as part of my XML patch, and other people
> who implement other types can add the appropriate ids with their
> patches, as well.
That is, until DRDA is updated to define the correct values, at which point the
temporary values will all have to change to match DRDA. That was implicit in my
last email, but I thought I'd make it explicit here to avoid confusion.
Army
Kathey Marsden (JIRA) wrote:
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?
Good question--thanks for bringing this up, Kathey. As it turns out,
I've actually been using different ids for XML which conflict with those
specified in this patch.
Since, as the comments in the code say, these values are temporary until
DRDA is updated to account for the new types, I don't think we need to
(nor want to) specify them all up front--it just makes for more things
we have to change down the road. I think it'd be better if we only add
the constants for DRDA type and SQL type when their respective datatypes
are implemented.
So in this case, I think it's fine for Rick's patch to include the
following:
> public static final int DRDA_TYPE_BOOLEAN = 0xD0;
> public static final int DRDA_TYPE_NBOOLEAN = 0xD1;
> public static final int DB2_SQLTYPE_BOOLEAN = 1000; //
BOOLEAN
> public static final int DB2_SQLTYPE_NBOOLEAN = 1001;
But it'd be best to leave the others off. I'll add my choice of XML ids
as part of my XML patch, and other people who implement other types can
add the appropriate ids with their patches, as well.
Army
