[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-651?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783201#action_12783201
]
Dag H. Wanvik commented on DERBY-651:
-------------------------------------
Thanks for this patch, Rick. Nice to see this addition! It was pretty
straight-forward to grok, although as always the changes in the type
classes challenge me. The general approach seems fine. I have only
nits which may have escaped your attention to contribute for now.
You may want to assign yourself now that you have made two nice patches :)
- Clarify somewhere difference between Derby User defined types and
(actual user created) UDTs; usage is a bit confusing now, you do use
the term UserDefinedTypeIdImpl for UDTs...
- Many lines > 80
* UserDefinedTypeIdImpl#isBound:
- lacks proper javadoc @return tag (more methods do too)
- simplify return !(className == null) ->
return className != null
* TypeDescriptor#isUserDefinedType:
- lacks proper javadoc @return tag
* BaseTypeIdImpl#getSchemaName, getUnqualifiedName: lack proper javadoc
@return tag
* TypeDescriptorImpl#isUserDefinedType: Javadoc: suggest {...@inheritdoc}
instead of @see
isBound: lacks proper javadoc @return tag
* TypeId#getUserDefinedTypeId lacks all javadoc tags
* ColumnDefinitionNode.java: spurious blank lines introduced
* UserType.java: would be nice to see docs describing difference between
setValue, setObject. Both have an Object parameter...
* QueryTreeNode#bindUserType: lacks all javadoc tags
> Re-enable the storing of java objects in the database
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-651
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-651
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: SQL
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
> Attachments: derby-651-01-aa-basicCreateDropType.diff,
> derby-651-02-af-udtColumnsRetvalsParams.diff, UserDefinedTypes.html,
> UserDefinedTypes.html, UserDefinedTypes.html, UserDefinedTypes.html
>
>
> Islay Symonette, in an email thread called "Storing Java Objects in a table"
> on October 26, 2005 requests the ability to store java objects in the
> database.
> Old releases of Cloudscape allow users to declare a column's type to be a
> Serializable class. This feature was removed from Derby because the syntax
> was non-standard. However, most of the machinery to support objects
> serialized to columns is still in Derby and is even used in system tables. We
> need to agree on some standard syntax here and re-expose this useful feature.
> Some subset of the ANSI adt syntax, cumbersome as it is, would do.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
