If it is deemed to be the wrong SQLState, then you should fix it.
My experience is JDBC developers are more focused on the Exception and
if they check further they often dig into the vendor error. This was a
reason we added the SQLException sub classes to help aid in better
portability.
If you have not bought a copy of the SQL Standard you really do not know
what this means (SQLState) anyways.
my .02
David W. Van Couvering wrote:
Thanks, Kathey. What if I find an existing SQLState in the embedded
code that uses a Derby-specific SQL State but which I think really
should be a standard SQL state?
For example, I think 42X89 ("Types ''{0}'' and ''{1}'' are not type
compatible. Neither type is assignable to the other type.") really is
a case of the standard SQL State 22005 - "error in assignment"
So the question is, using the taxonomy described in
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ForwardCompatibility
should SQL States be Stable or Unstable? If they are Stable, then I
can't fix this until 11.0, and I just need to log a bug for now. If
they are Unstable, I can fix this in 10.2.
I think really since our SQL States are documented, and we don't
really think of them as "experimental" or "transitional", then they
should be considered Stable, and I really can't change an existing SQL
State in a minor release.
But when adding a new SQL state to the client, which takes priority:
being consistent with the SQL state in embedded driver which is
non-compliant with the standard, or being consistent with the SQL
standard? I would vote for being consistent with the standard, and
explain that the inconsistency is due to a bug in the embedded driver
which will be fixed in the next major release.
Thanks,
David
Kathey Marsden wrote:
David W. Van Couvering wrote:
Hi, all. I looked at the listing of Derby's public APIs (see
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ForwardCompatibility), and it mentions
"Derby's JDBC support".
I need to delve in a little deeper. Are we guaranteeing compatibility
for the SQL States? For the 10.2 release, is it OK for me to change
the SQL State of an existing message, or do I need to keep it the same
across minor releases?
I don't think SQLStates are defined by the JDBC Standard but rather the
SQL Standard.
To that extent they should be compliant and match embedded where
possible.
SQLStates are documented but we have this caveat for client:
http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/dev/ref/rrefexcept71493.html
The following tables list /SQLStates/ for exceptions. Exceptions that
begin with an /X/ are specific to Derby. Note that some SQLStates
specific to the network client might change in future releases.
We also voted early to make client match embedded where possible and
that is in the documentation here.
http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/dev/adminguide/cadminappsclientdiffs.html.
I think that even within these guidelines early notification and buy in
from the user community is key, so should be posted on the user list.
and a Wiki page provided with information on how to write applications
that will work on both old and new versions.
But I think it is ok to change the SQLStates on client to:
1) Match the standard.
2) Match embedded.
3) Create a new SQLState instead of having a null SQLState for
SQLExceptions that are specific to client.
but not ok to :
1) Change client from some existing SQLState to another SQLState that
is neither compliant nor matches embedded.
I think message text can be changed, but the null SQLStates and message
text are an interesting case, because before that was the only way for
an app to check the error. I think some of our testing code does this.
Kathey
