The correct behavior would be, if the column is declared BOOLEANINT use 1/0, if it is BOOLEANCHAR use T/F and if it is BOOLEAN use the adapter to discover the correct comparison. This should not be difficult. I'm sorry if this logic is not implemented correctly, but I don't know why it would not be easy to do so.
john mcnally On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 16:39, James A. Hillyerd wrote: > Does anyone care about this? I wanted to hear others opinions before > adding it to scarab. > > -james > > On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 14:26, James A. Hillyerd wrote: > > The PostgreSQL db.props file has 3 different ways to use booleans: > > BIT = boolean > > BOOLEANCHAR = char > > BOOLEANINT = int2 > > > > Back in May I was having problems testing for true against columns > > defined with the BIT attribute. Criteria was comparing the column to > > the integer 1, which fails. Postgres expects the comparison to be > > against the word true. > > > > John McNally was kind enough to add a new database adapter method to > > allow Criteria to use the correct method for each database. The > > postgres adapter was configured to use true/false instead of 1/0. > > > > On Aug 31 Jon Scott Stevens patched the postgres adapter so that it > > again used 1/0 instead of true/false. This was to fix a scarab bug: > > http://scarab.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=368 > > > > I don't have access to that bug tracker, I tried to create an account > > but so far it has not sent me a password. So I don't know exactly what > > that bug says, but my guess is that they are using BOOLEANINT instead of > > BIT for their boolean fields. Anyway, the patch breaks my BIT-based > > schema. > > > > I'm not sure what strings BOOLEANCHAR uses, I remember reading somewhere > > that it was 't' and 'f'. In which case, neither of the above > > comparisons will work. > > > > This is a real mess! It seems to me the only way to solve the problem > > is to have each database only support one method of storing BIT/BOOLEAN > > values. Of course this will cause problems for people who already have > > a schema in production that does not use that particular method. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -james > > > > -- > > [] James A. Hillyerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Java Software Engineer > > [] PGP 1024D/D31BC40D F87B 7906 C0DA 32E8 B8F6 DE23 FBF6 4712 D31B C40D > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > James A. Hillyerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Java Software Engineer - http://www.whynotown.com/ > > > -- > 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]>
