Did you read my reasons for the ugly if double, then float stuff ?

On 30-Jun-05, at 8:04 PM, Oliver Jowett wrote:

> Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
>> I've changed direction to an array
>>
>
> Ok. What did you think about removing it entirely from the
> parameterlist
> level? It just seems like extra complexity that doesn't need to be
> there..

I think it can be removed, however I think sooner than later we will
be dealing
with more complex parameters when stored procedures with real IN/OUT
parms
>
>
>> regarding the jdbc3 type conversion in registerOutParameter, an
>> existing conversion (BIT to BOOLEAN) was there, do all of them
>> need to
>> be in jdbc2 ?
>>
>
> BOOLEAN is only defined in JDBC3, so that conversion needs to be in
> the
> JDBC3 code or the driver won't build under JDBC2.
>
> All the others should be in JDBC2 code.
>
Done
>
>>>>> You seem to have reverted your earlier changes and put back the
>>>>> types/* classes -- why?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> huh ? they should be in there in HEAD, I did remove the
>>>> creation of an
>>>> object, and went to static methods
>>>>
>>>>
>> I moved them from to core/types, but they have always been there
>>
>
> Oh, ok, your patch didn't show those renames. I also thought you'd
> removed the types/ stuff earlier, guess I misread your commit :/
>
> I still think they are redundant and should be entirely removed. We
> can
> do that afterwards though.

If absolutely necessary, however I don't think setObject with a
different type is
in the critical path
>
> Why the repackaging?

can't remember now.
>
> -O
>
>


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster