| From: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: datatype conversion thoughts |
| Date: | 2004-10-11 21:27:01 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.56.0410111623250.1854@leary.csoft.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> Barry Lind wrote:
> > Kris,
> >
> > How would PGDataType relate to PGObject? I have always thought that
> > PGObject should be extended and used for all datatypes (not just
> > extensions).
>
> We have the problem that PGobject is a public interface, so we probably
> need an adaption layer at a minimum to handle older PGobject
> implementations that don't know about binary formats, streaming, etc
> when they are introduced.
>
I had envisioned making PGDataType have some methods like supportsBinary()
or similar to not require every datatype to support binary transfer. By
making PGobject extend PGDataType it would not need to be changed much/at
all to fit into this scheme.
Kris Jurka
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Jowett | 2004-10-11 21:30:23 | Re: datatype conversion thoughts |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2004-10-11 21:19:43 | Re: datatype conversion thoughts |