Urhm, +1 on that...still -5 on the SQLJ support. :-P Larry
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Clinton Begin <[email protected]> wrote: > I suppose we should count all of the misinterpretations about "what > SQLJ is" as "no". ;-) >
Urhm, +1 on that...still -5 on the SQLJ support. :-P Larry
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Clinton Begin <[email protected]> wrote: > I suppose we should count all of the misinterpretations about "what > SQLJ is" as "no". ;-) >