So, the bottom line is the Oracle JDBC driver does not care about specification. Trying to set a number(1,0) field with a null value as boolean throws an exception and there is not much we can do (excluding registering an issue at oracle). As far as I remember, projects like Hibernate or Toplink Essentials (followed by Eclipselink) do translate booleans to numbers before touching JDBC, but maybe we should double check it.
Regards, Witold Szczerba --- Sent from my mobile phone. On Feb 4, 2013 6:06 PM, "Lukas Eder" <[email protected]> wrote: > > More seriously, since Jooq's mission is "database first", JDBC > conventions are probably not an authoritative source for DB encoding > conventions. > > I trust that the JDBC specification was made by an expert group based > on well-informed "database-first" decisions. In particular, this case > is not a convention but behaviour by specification. JDBC drivers are > to adhere to this specification. Hence the abstraction provided by > JDBC over any underlying database is trustworthy enough for jOOQ to > rely on - unless there is some specification ambiguity that I have now > overlooked...? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "jOOQ User Group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
