freetds AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: FreeTDS Development Group
List archive
- From: Craig Spannring <cts AT internetcds.com>
- To: "TDS Development Group" <freetds AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: JDBC bug?
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 07:40:47 -0700 (MST)
Brett Knights writes:
>
>
> in reply to Craig Spannring
> >
> > Brett Knights writes:
> >
>
> Why? In 13 years of database development I have never had a need for
> this. A couple of times a desire for it maybe but on reflection I was
> always able to get around this and probably had a better performing
> system as a result.
There are a lot of things in JDBC (especially 2.0) that are a poor fit
for relational databases.
> > You should read the JDBC spec.
> Wow - that seems rather bizarre. I guess if MS put's a feature on a
> checklist others must follow suit.
Make sure you don't confuse Microsoft (TDS) with Sun (JDBC). Just
remember, the MS motto is, "We own the world and really don't care
about the customer." Sun's motto is, "We are going to own the world
and really don't care about the customer."
>
> I see your point about the requirement for multiple open statements but
> at least the spec gives a nod to reality by stating that you can "hack"
> the requirement for multiple open statements by serializing them (or
> something) when the underlying database doesn't easily support the
> concept.
>
I suppose if the connection is in non-autoCommit mode the driver could
leave a closed statement open until the user calls commit() or
rollback(). It wouldn't add to much code. Of course if I just want
off the hook, the JDBC 1.20 says the semantics of transactions are
implementation defined.
> Sorry, thread safety considerations seemed to be implied by your earlier
> response. As it turns out JDBC objects are required to be thread safe
> anyway.
Actually, someone else (Eric Mountain) wrote that.
--
=======================================================================
Life is short. | Craig Spannring
Bike hard, ski fast. | cts AT internetcds.com
--------------------------------+------------------------------------
Any sufficiently horrible technology is indistinguishable from Perl.
=======================================================================
-
JDBC bug?,
Betty Chang, 02/24/2000
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: JDBC bug?, Eric Mountain, 02/24/2000
- Re: JDBC bug?, Brett Knights, 02/24/2000
- Re: JDBC bug?, Craig Spannring, 02/24/2000
- Re: JDBC bug?, Brett Knights, 02/24/2000
- Re: JDBC bug?, Craig Spannring, 02/25/2000
- Re: JDBC bug?, Betty Chang, 02/26/2000
- Re: JDBC bug?, Eric Mountain, 02/29/2000
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.