Kathey Marsden wrote:
Another similar case is DERBY-1501 where it
would be nice if Derby were more forgiving of non-portable apps. Of
course in both of those other cases we would just be adding to existing
support, not changing existing behavior and `there is a risk to apps
that develop
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Kathey Marsden wrote:
Another similar case is DERBY-1501 where it
would be nice if Derby were more forgiving of non-portable apps. Of
course in both of those other cases we would just be adding to existing
support, not changing existing behavior
Lance J. Andersen wrote:
With 1501 the JDBC spec says the type must be known (I think it's a bug
in the *draft* spec for the type to be ignored), that's the portable
behaviour, ignoring the type not only leads to non-portable applications
but also inconsistencies in derby. E.g. a NULL defined
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Lance J. Andersen wrote:
With 1501 the JDBC spec says the type must be known (I think it's a bug
in the *draft* spec for the type to be ignored), that's the portable
behaviour, ignoring the type not only leads to non-portable applications
but
