| From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, "pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: getXXX methods |
| Date: | 2004-07-08 12:11:23 |
| Message-ID: | 1089288683.1506.235.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
I think that since the SQL spec is referenced at the end of the JDBC
spec that it has some relevance. I just thought that in absence of a
second, or third opinion this would suggest a course of action?
Dave
On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 02:50, Kris Jurka wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> > Ok, it appears (at least from my understanding) that Kris is correct
> > here.
> >
> > I had a look at the sql2003 proposed spec (ISO/IEC 9075-2:2003(E)), and
> > it states:
>
> Well the SQL spec and the JDBC spec are different things. I was basing
> part of my argument on the SQL spec's logic and extending that to fill in
> the holes in the JDBC spec, but I don't consider this definitive. I still
> feel this is the right thing to do, but I don't want to close off the
> discussion if people feel otherwise.
>
> Kris Jurka
>
>
>
> !DSPAM:40eceebb46734039016794!
>
>
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dario V. Fassi | 2004-07-08 18:45:17 | Availability of a Signed Version of postgresql.jar |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2004-07-08 09:07:37 | Re: Terrible performance after deleting/recreating indexes |