Daniel John Debrunner wrote: I have not release the Proposed Final Draft to the JCP and there have been many updates to the compliance chapter since that version you have in your hand.Lance J. Andersen wrote:The compliance chapter has seen significant clarifications for JDBC 4 to clarify what is and is not required. If you implement and interface for a data type such as blob/clob all methods must be implemented otherwise you do not support the data type.Is this a recent change to JDBC 4.0? I have a copy dated March 17th 2006 and I cannot see any significant changes to the Compliance chapter. It is only required if you claim support for the data type in your driver. What we do not want is you to say u support Clobs but only implement the methods on the interface that you happen to like. We want to provide a consistent api where users know what to expect.I do see this sentence (section 6.7 Java EE JDBC compliance): "Support for the BLOB, CLOB, ARRAY, REF, STRUCT, and JAVA_OBJECT types is not required." So, why would full support for Blob be required for JDBC 4.0 compliance, if BLOB support is not required for Java EE JDBC and JDBC 4.0 compliance. Again, if you choose to not claim to support these data types, you do not need to implement the interfacesI'm just try to ensure that we are not trying to implement more than is required for JDBC 4.0 compliance, if we end up pushing against a Sep/Oct deadline for a Derby release with JDBC 4.0. However to claim support and not implement all methods for a given data type is of limited value and makes it even more difficult to port apps from other databases to a given database The JDBC spec consists of the paper spec and the javadocs.I'm also asking for reference numbers (e.g. section numbers) as we just recently had a problem where the GRANT/REVOKE functional spec stated that something was one way according to the SQL spec. It turned out that the statement was incorrect, and lead to wasted time & effort. Adding references to the specification to backup facts makes it much easier for others to verify. The compliance chapter articulates the requirements i list above in the working version of the PFD. Thanks, Dan. |
- Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1283) Fill in a depreca... Lance J. Andersen
- Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1283) Fill in a de... Daniel John Debrunner
- Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1283) Fill in ... Lance J. Andersen
- What does deprecation mean for JDBC? (Was ... Kathey Marsden
- Re: What does deprecation mean for JDBC... Lance J. Andersen
- Re: What does deprecation mean for ... Rick Hillegas
- Re: What does deprecation mean... Kathey Marsden
- [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1283) Fill in a deprec... Rick Hillegas (JIRA)
- Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1283) Fill in a de... Dyre . Tjeldvoll