[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3652?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12595154#action_12595154
]
thomanie edited comment on DERBY-3652 at 5/8/08 2:01 AM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Even though it does not have "patch available" checked, I went ahead and tested
the third patch.
Regression tests run sucessfully for me as well, and the patch fixes the broken
behavior for int/Integer mapping. I extended the attached
SignatureProblems.java and accompanying sql script with double/Double mapping -
which still work with the patch applied.
+1 to commit the third patch as is, and follow up later with a proper test case.
was (Author: thomanie):
Even though it does not have "patch available" checked, I went ahead and
tested the third patch.
Regression tests run sucessfully for me as well, and the patch fixes the broken
behavior for int/Integer mapping. I extended the attached
SignatureProblems.java and accompanying sql script with double/Double
conversions and they work fine with the patch too.
+1 to commit the third patch as is, and follow up later with a proper test case.
> Derby does not follow the SQL Standard when trying to map SQL routines to
> Java methods.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-3652
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3652
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 10.5.0.0
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
> Attachments: derby-3652-01-aa-mixTypesOnFirstPass.diff,
> derby-3652-01-ab-mixTypesOnFirstPass.diff,
> derby-3652-01-ac-mixTypesOnFirstPass.diff, SignatureMapping.html,
> SignatureMapping.html, SignatureProblems.java, signatureProblems.sql
>
>
> I have only tested this in the 10.5 trunk. However, I suspect that this
> affects all previous releases of Derby as well.
> In resolving method signatures for function/procedure invocations, the SQL
> standard makes the following definitions in part 13, section 4.5 (parameter
> mapping). These definitions, in turn, refer to tables B-1 and B-3 in JDBC 3.0
> Specification, Final Release, October 2001 ([JDBC]).
> * Simply mappable - This refers to the correspondence of SQL and Java
> types described in [JDBC] table B-1. This is the table which defines the
> mapping of SQL types to Java primitives.
> * Object mappable - This refers to the correspondence of SQL and Java
> types described in [JDBC] table B-3. This is the table which defines the
> mapping of SQL types to Java wrapper objects.
> * Output mappable - For OUT and INOUT parameters, this refers to a single
> element array whose cell is simply mappable or object mappable. E.g.
> Integer[] or float[].
> * Mappable - This means simply, object, or output mappable.
> * Result set mappable - This means a single element array whose cell is a
> type which implements either java.sql.ResultSet or
> sqlj.runtime.ResultSetIterator.
> Putting all of this together, section 4.5 continues:
> "A Java method with M parameters is mappable (to SQL) if and only if, for
> some N, 0 (zero) <= N <= M, the data types of the first N parameters are
> mappable, the last M - N parameters are result set mappable, and the result
> type is either simply mappable, object mappable, or void."
> Section 8.6 gives more detailed rules, but they are hard to follow. According
> to section 8.6, when resolving a routine invocation, Derby should expect to
> find one and only one static mappable method with the expected external name
> (Java class + method name).
> I believe that this is a fair description of the rules. This, at least, is
> what some other databases appear to do. See, for instance,
> http://infocenter.sybase.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.sybase.help.ase_15.0.java/html/java/java126.htm
> and
> http://www.service-architecture.com/database/articles/mapping_sql_and_java_data_types.html
> We do not have a regression test which verifies that Derby applies the SQL
> standard resolution rules. There may be several divergences from the
> standard. This JIRA is a place to track those discrepancies. Here is one that
> I have noticed:
> The following SQL signature
> ( a int ) returns int
> should be mappable to any of the following Java signatures
> public static int f( int a )
> public static int f( Integer a )
> public static Integer f( int a )
> public static Integer f( Integer a )
> However, I observe that Derby is only able to resolve the first and third
> signatures (the ones with primitive arguments). I will attach a test case
> showing this problem.
> I will also attach an html table summarizing the simply and object mappable
> rules.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
