Yes, I see that now on a second pass at section 23.
However, to answer Kathy's question, no, the SQL Class Values used for
JDBC SQLExceptions were defined around the standard SQL class values,
not implementation defined class values. Perhaps we can consider
extending this in JDBC 4.1, but for now i would just return a SQLException.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Kathey Marsden wrote:
Lance J. Andersen wrote:
perhaps it is worth going back to DRDA and asking them where/how
they came up with that class value?
I put a query into the one DRDA contact I have but unfortunately he
is out for a few weeks. Perhaps Rick knows someone who could answer
where class 58 came from.
58 is a valid "implementation-defined subclass" SQLState. All that
DRDA has done is defined its own SQL state values that the SQL
Standard guarantees it will not use.
Dan.
