On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:50:57 -0700
"Ford, Trevor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > simply use the "deprecated" flag for the getName() method.
> >
> Indeed!
>
> > I thought about :
> > Iterator getNames()
> >
> > and maybe
> > String[] getNames()
> >
> > would be better since it's much ea
> simply use the "deprecated" flag for the getName() method.
>
Indeed!
> I thought about :
> Iterator getNames()
>
> and maybe
> String[] getNames()
>
> would be better since it's much easier to initialize statically
>
I would also prefer the second version (return a String[]), because
Whilst I agree that getName() is a special case of getNames(), isn't it
perhaps a bit harsh to remove getName() - this would break all of the
applications which are directly using the getName() method.
(Even if all driver vendors update their implementations immediately.)
Perhaps it is better to
> Ok, I would like to add this extension. But what's the behaviour of a
> vendor implementation? Does such an implementation needs to implement
> both getters for a single name and a sequence of names?
> Does registerDatabase() need to retrieve names through both getters?
> I see getName() as a spe
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:49:23 +0100
"Per Nyfelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, sounds good to add getNames().
Ok, I would like to add this extension. But what's the behaviour of a
vendor implementation? Does such an implementation needs to implement
both getters for a single name and a sequence
