>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel John Debrunner (JIRA) wrote (2006-10-09 09:20:22): > [ > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1938?page=comments#action_12440912 > ] > > Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-1938: > ---------------------------------------------- > > Section 13.2.2.2 does not apply here. Since Java null has no type it > cannot be mapped using this rule: "the Java Object mapped using the > default mapping for that object type. " > > I think the real justification for changing setObject(col, null) > seems be to match other JDBC drivers (which ones?) and/or > applications that seem to expect this to work. But there's liittle > evidence of that justification in this thread. > > I think it's clear that the JDBC spec (from the tutorial) indicates > that applications should not depend on this behaviour.
I think we should be cautious with extensions like this. Although it's neat, userfriendly and comfortable not to have to worry about the type of a null value, at also represent a kind "lock-in", since programs which work fine with Derby but are dependent on this feature will not be easily portable to all other standard compliant databases. -- Bernt Marius Johnsen, Database Technology Group, Staff Engineer, Technical Lead Derby/Java DB Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
