Myrna van Lunteren wrote: >On 8/9/05, Jeffrey Lichtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> >> >>>This looks to me like an edge case. Rather than disable an entire >>>datatype, I'd recommend logging bugs on these edge cases. Unless >>>code archeology at IBM discloses some serious problem like data >>>corruption, I would recommend re-enabling the BOOLEAN datatype. >>> >>>-Rick >>> >>> >>I agree. >> >>I have looked at the parser, datatype code and JDBC implementation, >>and I don't see where anything is missing. Cloudscape used to have a >>full implementation of boolean before IBM disabled a bunch of >>features. This included the use of "?" parameters, boolean >>expressions, et al. It looks to me like all IBM did was put one line >>of code in the parser to prevent the use of the boolean type except >>for internal purposes. Unless I'm mistaken, it should be possible to >>completely re-enable the feature by eliminating that one line of code. >> >>The line of code is: >> >>checkInternalFeature(TypeId.BOOLEAN_NAME); >> >>in the dataTypeCommon() rule. >> >>- Jeff Lichtman >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Check out Swazoo Koolak's Web Jukebox at >>http://swazoo.com/ >> >> Yes, at IBM the Boolean type was disabled. I haven't done the >> >> >archeology, but disabling was not done because of some horrendous known bug >in this area. > However, before someone undisables the lines identified by Jeff, I will >mention that more work than meets the eye went into it - at least into >adjusting the tests. Many of the tests are intended to test functionality >with every single datatype. When the Boolean datatype was disabled, all >these tests had to be modified and usage of Boolean is thus *nowhere* tested >anymore, and if reinstated, testing should be rewritten. > Also, the derbyclient probably has no support for Boolean datatype. > Myrna > > > I am not too up on what is or is not needed for BOOLEAN, but if someone puts it in, pretty please don't forget that soft upgrade check #:)
Thanks Kathey
