+1. Original argument of ease of migration from Sybase, Microsoft servers goes for a toss with a SIGNED implementation. There are too many issues with the current proposal. I am for making this follow closer to current implementations, if all.
Satheesh Francois Orsini wrote: > Since Sybase, MySQL and MS SQL Server have had support for UNSIGNED > TINYINT for many years (at least for 2 of them), offering support for > an UNSIGNED TINYINT rather than SIGNED at this point makes more sense > and can only be good for Derby's adoption (and that a sufficient > reason for adding it IMHO) (SIGNED TINYINT could always be enabled > later _if_ required but JDBC does not require the type to be signed in > the first place) - it brings value for getting Derby more adopted from > users looking to migrate from other known and popular RDBMS (not just > from the ones which got most market shares)...and as far as the > footprint as previously mentioned, it is good to offer support for a > 1-Byte datatype which does matter indeed when running in a > small-device environment. > > --francois
