David W. Van Couvering wrote: > I thought Rick's suggestion of adding the "UNSIGNED" keyword was a good > solution -- we can get the best of both worlds...
So more non-standard syntax? Why is it better for a SQL Server/Sybase application to change their types to TINYINT UNSIGNED, instead of SMALLINT? Or even SMALLINT with a check constraint to limit the range. Dan. > > David > > 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
