Daniel John Debrunner wrote: > Bernt M. Johnsen wrote: > >>Moves to the mailing list. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Daniel John Debrunner (JIRA) wrote (2006-02-10 15:54:59): >>> >>> [ >>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-591?page=comments#action_12365900 >>> ] >> >> >>>Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-591: >>>--------------------------------------------- >>> >>>Not sure what you are asking here Bernt. This is a bug reporting >>>that several Derby functions are incorrectly exposed thorugh the >>>JDBC escaped function mechanism. It's not about implementing more >>>escaped functions. >> >> >>Sorry if I was unclear. >> >>I'll try again: Sateesh addresses those functions in SQL which are >>*not* a part of the JDBC escaped-function-set as defined in the JDBC >>spec (unless I misinterpreted). I want also to address the functions >>defined in the JDBC-spec which have other names (and possibly other >>arguments/argument-syntax) in the SQL standard. They're all >>implemented today as if the JDBC escaped names are equal to the SQL >>names. >> >>Was that clearer?
OK, I was being dense. :-) To rephrase to ensure I understand, you want to implement functions that are defined by the SQL standard, whose functionality is currently implemented by JDBC escape functions. In some cases (not 'all', that was throwing me) the SQL function is implemented in Derby today by function with the same name as the JDBC escaped function name. Sounds great, these would be all new Jira enhancements, nothing to do with DERBY-591. Sorry for any confusion, Dan.
