the columns of a table should be a set (and thus have no ordering).
That would be much slower. I also wrote a generic wrapper (abstract
class) - see below. It's a bit faster than yours because the map is
created when initializing. Be careful, I didn't actually test the
adapter (it compiles, that's it). But please note HashMap<String,
Object> is case sensitive; using SimpleResultSet is better I agree.
I was not talking about how to implement relations but how they should
be visible to users.
If jdbc (and sql) would only offer name based access to columns then
there would not be any specific order from the user's point of view.
And thus therefore changing the order of attributes (columns) in a
relation would not be possible.
This would not limit the implementation in any way.
You could still maintain a definate order for the attributes at the
level of implementation.
Now jdbc and sql offer both column name and index based referral to
attributes.
Indexing is sometimes 1 based and sometimes 0 based.
> It's easy to get this wrong.
In Java, array indexing is always 0 based.
Yes, of course. But in jdbc every index based access seems to be 1-based.
I only meant this as a generic argument against positional access.
- rami
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2
Database" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en.
