Army <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Knut Anders Hatlen wrote: >> Bryan Pendleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Thanks to both Knut Anders and Bryan for the excellent and timely > replies to my question. > >> When I look at writeQRYDTA and writeFDODTA in DRDAConnThread, it seems >> to me that we actually break the DRDA spec in two ways: >> >> 1) QRYROWSET=0 has the same effect as QRYROWSET=1 >> 2) For forward-only/read-only result sets, QRYROWSET will be ignored >> (both on OPNQRY and CNTQRY) - haven't verified this since the >> client doesn't send QRYROWSET in this case. >> >> 1 is causing the reported problem with the ODBC driver. I don't know >> if 2 is a problem. The client driver never sends an explicit QRYROWSET >> when the result set is forward-only, but maybe the ODBC driver does. > > Thank you for tracking these down. I filed #1 as a bug (DERBY-1468) > and #2 as a "task" for further investigation (DERBY-1469).
Thanks! > So the next questions are 1) should DERBY-1468 be marked as a > "Regression" since existing apps that use ODBC against 10.1 will see > incorrect behavior if they upgrade to 10.2? I think marking it as regression is appropriate. The 822 patch broke some of the implicit assumptions in the code. > And 2) Ummm...anyone out > there interested in fixing DERBY-1468 for the 10.2 deadline? :) I guess it's my duty since I'm the source of the regression... Will have a look at it. -- Knut Anders
