db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lance J. Andersen" <Lance.Ander...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: setObject(idx, bigDecimal, Types.NUMERIC); doesn't work ?
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:14:46 GMT
The spec needs to be followed whether you agree or disagree with the 
semantics.  The javadocs are very specific here and there must have been 
a reason for this decision at the time.  As i indicated to Craig, I am 
trying to find out if any of the previous spec leads recall why this was 
done before i do anything else on this issue.

A change in this area could potentially break existing applications who 
are relying on the functionality as documented.  This would have to be 
weighed by the JDBC EG prior to any changes in behavior. 

It is just not a simple change the javadocs at this time.  This has to 
be researched and discussed further.  It could well be that no one is 
impacted, i just do not know at this point in time.

Bernt M. Johnsen wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Craig L Russell wrote (2006-01-05 16:59:00):
>>I asked Lance Anderson, spec lead for JDBC 4.0, about this issue and  
>>he replied that he thinks that due to compatibility with existing  
>>applications that rely on this behavior, it's unlikely to change.
>>My opinion is that the behavior is surprising, and that most  
>>applications that discover that the API with a  BigDecimal parameter  
>>truncates all the decimals, simply change to the API call that allows  
>>you to specify the scale.
>>So my big unfounded claim is that there is no use for the API without  
>>the scale parameter taking a BigDecimal parameter with the current  
>>behavior. And that changing it has low risk of untoward results.
>Do you suggest that we should throw an exception if setObject without
>scale is called with a BigDecimal argument? Or do you suggest that we
>let setObject default to the scale of the BigDecimal parameter and
>thus violating the spec? 

View raw message