On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> Kris Jurka wrote:
> > I was looking at the assorted changes to the PGobject extensions and I'm
> > unclear on exactly how NULL is handled. Consider PGmoney has tests for
> > NULL in equals, clone, and getValue, but PGbox does not. Is this simply
> > an oversight or is there something more profound going on here.
> I ended up with two approaches for this.
I don't like the lack of consistency here, "new PGbox()" is NULL, but "new
PGmoney()" is zero instead. I also don't like the ability to mutate away
NULLness. This means another application can break mine by modifying the
shared PGbox.NULL object.
> It's hardly ideal but it kept the changes to a minimum. If you don't
> mind a more invasive set of changes, I can probably come up with
> something better.
Yes, let's think about this a little more. I unfortunately don't have any
brilliant ideas, perhaps just adding a boolean everywhere is simplest.
Here's a merged version of the patch, if it helps:
In response to
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Kris Jurka||Date: 2004-10-14 12:10:31|
|Subject: Re: problem with dates when using a java calendar object with|
|Previous:||From: Oliver Jowett||Date: 2004-10-14 10:56:00|
|Subject: Re: tightening up on use of oid 0|