On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 2:44 AM Yoann Rodiere wrote:
> If by "basic types" you mean *all* basic types, including user-defined
> ones, I think it would make sense. Otherwise it sounds a bit limiting.
>
In 6.0 "user-defined type" means a very different thing generally speaking.
But I mean any BasicT
for native SQL I think it makes sense to only support basic types for
parameters binding.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 08:45, Yoann Rodiere wrote:
> If by "basic types" you mean *all* basic types, including user-defined
> ones, I think it would make sense. Otherwise it sounds a bit limiting.
>
> Ther
If by "basic types" you mean *all* basic types, including user-defined
ones, I think it would make sense. Otherwise it sounds a bit limiting.
There's the case of embedded IDs that might be considered as an exception,
but I'm not sure there's a compelling reason to do so.
By the way... it's not na
While working on 6.0 I am wondering whether it makes sense to support
parameters of anything other than basic types. Personally I am thinking
not, but wanted to get other's opinions.
The idea being that neither SQL nor JDBC define support for bind parameters
of multiple values. So expecting to b
