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.
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 |
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) |