Thanks. I take the point about convenience. I think what was puzzling me was that in a number of cases there isn't any convenience. No one in the real world is ever going to do getByte on a value that was stored as a Double. But having conversions like that in the spec just clutters both the spec and the implementation.
I'm not objecting to all conversions. As I said in the base note, some make perfect sense. I was just puzzled by the fact that some of the ones that SDO offers don't really deliver any value (that I can see) to the user and yet they add burden for the developers. I'll ask this in the spec mailing list as Frank suggests. Geoff. On 20/07/06, Yang ZHONG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Geoff, while providing convenience as Frank explains, the spec doesn't prevent users from converting themselves. e.g. a user can always converts from double to byte then calls setByte. Are you proposing to always force users to convert and setXxx fails with mismatched Type? On 7/20/06, Frank Budinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Geoff, I don't really know the answer, but my guess is that it's simply a > matter of trying to provide as much convenience as possible. I think you > should ask this question on the SDO spec collaboration mailing list. > > Frank. > > "Geoffrey Winn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/20/2006 08:36:09 > AM: > > > This may be the wrong forum for this question (in which case maybe > someone > > can suggest the right one) however, I'm a bit puzzled by some of the > built > > in datatype conversions that SDO performs. > > > > Some conversions are obvious, such as Byte to any of the wider integer > > forms. However others are more questionable. For example, referring to > page > > 146 of V2.01 of the Java Spec, it seems to be possible to convert a > Double > > to Byte. I can see that occasionally that will work, and occasionally it > > will work with a modest amount of rounding, but in most cases the result > is > > just noise. Long to Byte is another one that will fail a lot more often > than > > it succeeds. > > > > The obvious reply to this is that it is up to the user to make sure that > > these conversions are invoked only when they make sense - but if the > user > > has to take that responsibility, then they might as well do the > conversion > > themselves. > > > > I just wondered what the reasoning was behind including such a wide > range of > > conversions. > > > > Regards, > > > > Geoff. > > -- > > Yang ZHONG
