JDBC: why is PGobject class instead of interface?

From: Bear Giles <bear(at)coyotesong(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: JDBC: why is PGobject class instead of interface?
Date: 2002-01-07 00:00:35
Message-ID: 200201070000.RAA11675@eris.coyotesong.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

In the JDBC binding, why is PGobject a class instead of an interface?

This is a moot issue when creating a type from scratch, but Java
contains a large number of standard classes (not interfaces) for
PKIX objects so I'm in a bind when trying to create my own JDBC
extensions.

Specifically, some of the key mappings (no pun intended) are:

hugeint <-> java.language.BigInteger
principal <-> java.security.Principal
x509 <-> java.security.cert.X509Certificate
x509_crl <-> java.security.cert.X509CRL

and some additional metamappings between pkcs8 and java.security.KeyStore.

I can implement the mapping by casting between the objects and text,
but if a type extension mechanism is available it would be nice to be
able to hide those details from the user.

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-01-07 01:04:46 Effects of pgbench "scale factor"
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2002-01-06 23:12:07 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ed Yu 2002-01-07 04:37:08 bytea column support (Postgresql 7.1.3)
Previous Message Ed Yu 2002-01-06 03:52:48 Patches for DatabaseMetaData.java for Postgresql 7.1.3 (sorry, here is the diff -c with explanations)