Sorry, I meant BOOLEANSMALLINT - but I think my answer is that for our databases which support SMALLINT, then in db.props we should be defining BOOLEANINT as SMALLINT, which seems to fill my bill and stay with the spirit of torque.
It appears that the only db.props that currently defines BOOLEANINT/BOOLEANCHAR is Postgress, which defines BOOLEANINT the same as it defines SHORTINT (ie int2), which seems to confirm my thought. Please let me know what you think. Russell On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 12:14, J. Russell Smyth wrote: > the types BOOLEANINT and BOOLEANCHAR in database.xml appear to be > Torqe-specific, creating a mapping from SQL Integer/Character to object > booleans... > > 1 - could someone confirm this assumption? > 2 - if this is correct, I would also have use for a BOOLEANSHORTINT, in > fact, it would remove 75% of my need for db<-->java type mapping (not > entirely, and I would still plan to suggest that addition). Would this > addition be accepted by the Torque team for v3? > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
