I agree this could be improved.
My view is that ResultSet is a Java programming interface which gives
access to a SQL concept (cursor), so result sets are based on cursors,
not opposite.
Some existing docs have the opposite view (cursors are defined in
terms of ResultSets).
In which direction do you propose we should define cursors <->
ResultSets ?
I propose that we focus on ResultSet and only mention cursors in the
context of positioned updates/deletes. For the definition of cursors, I
think we can borrow that from the glossary in the JDBC tutorial.
Ok.
..
Scrollable updatable result sets
- The term "scrollable" is not used in the manual prior to your
changes. I think that indicates that a job is needed to make
the terminology consistent. Either, you need to keep on using
the old terminology, or you need to update the old text to use
"scrollable".
I will change it from "scrollable" to "scroll insensitve", since it is
more precise.
I think some places "scrolling" is used instead of "scroll".
After thinking about it, I think "scrollable resultset" is much better
language than "scrolling resultset". Scrollable covers both resultsets
of type "ResultSet.TYPE_SCROLL_INSENSITIVE and
ResultSet.TYPE_SCROLL_SENSITIVE". In JDBC tutorials, I found that they
used the terms scrollable this way, and sometimes referred to resultsets
of type ResultSet.TYPE_FORWARD_ONLY as non-scrollable.
I will modify the current language in the docs which I touch (and maybe
the other docs as well) to make this consistent.
- "after they were _populated_ to the result set". I would say it
is a result set that is populated, not the rows. Or can someone
be populated to a city? :-)
Maybe "populate" is not a good verb ..? Any better suggestions ?
How about fetched?
Thanks, I think I can use fetched instead.
Extended updatable cursor example
- Comment says auto-commit needs to be off. The section
"ResultSets and auto-commit" says the opposite. The section
"Using auto-commit" also says updatable cursors do not work with
auto-commit on. At least one of those must be wrong.
I cannot see that I have touched any of these documents, so this must
be inconsistencies in existing documents.
OK. I should file bug report for this.
Yes.
Andreas
