Of course. If the blob field type is used for a byte array or serialized
object, it still works but it generates a warning that suggests the correct
field type.
-Adrian
--- On Sat, 6/26/10, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
> From: Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
> Subject: Re: Discussion: New Field Types
> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 12:19 PM
> Looks like a good idea to me. I
> suppose you would keep backward compatibility?
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Adrian Crum" <adrian.c...@yahoo.com>
> > The blob field type is being used as a catch-all for
> multiple binary types. Right now getting an object from a
> blob field type
> > could return a byte array, a deserialized Java object,
> or a javax.sql.rowset.serial.SerialBlob object. There is no
> way to know for
> > sure what will be returned - the entity engine code
> tries various methods until one works.
> >
> > I think it would be better to specify exactly what you
> intend to store in a BLOB SQL type: a byte array, a
> serialized Java object,
> > or some unknown binary type. So, I propose that we add
> two new field types: byte-array and object. Using Derby as
> an example, this
> > is what it would look like in fieldtypederby.xml:
> >
> > <field-type-def type="blob" sql-type="BLOB"
> java-type="java.sql.Blob"></field-type-def>
> > <field-type-def type="byte-array" sql-type="BLOB"
> java-type="byte[]"></field-type-def>
> > <field-type-def type="object" sql-type="BLOB"
> java-type="java.lang.Object"></field-type-def>
> >
> > Getting an object from each field type would return
> the respective Java object type.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > -Adrian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
