Re: Re: [PATCHES] Re: [INTERFACES] Patch for JDBC timestamp problems

At 17:23 30/01/01 -0500, Joseph Shraibman wrote:
>Peter T Mount wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net>:
> >
> > > Michael Stephenson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Joseph Shraibman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > What was the conclusion of this discussion? Do we leave it
> > > static?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it cannot be static.
> > > >
> > > > As I see it we have three possible solutions to this problems.
> > > >
> > > > a) Just stop it being static, each PreparedStatement gets a new
> > > > instantiation (I think this is what we've done for now).
> > > > b) static ThreadLocal, each Thread gets one instantiation.
> > >
> > > But I think some people are still using java 1.1.x and they don't have
> > > ThreadLocal.
> >
> > True, except the 1.1 & 1.2 implementations are different packages, so you
> > simply don't do ThreadLocal in 1.1.x
> >
>
>Umm, not exactly. You can use jdbc 2 with java 1.1.x by downloading a
>seperate package. I'm not sure how many people do this, but I imagine
>there are a few.

A subset maybe, but there are some bits that reference classes introduced
in JDK1.2.x and later, so would simply not work with 1.1.

Peter