On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 15:36, Anders Hermansen wrote:
> * Daniel Serodio (daniel@checkforte.com.br) wrote:
> > Old Javadoc indeed. I'm using 1.3.1. I can't recall right now, is the
> > JDBC in Java 1.3.1 is JDBC2? Maybe the app (reversedb) should try to
> > find out if it's talking to JDBC2 or JDBC3, then use table=null or not
> > accordingly. Is this viable?
>
> At what we have found out here, it should not use table=null in either
> case. Right?
Right. Sorry, I meant to say schema=null
> But this "extension" (table=null) must work with some database drivers
> since it is in OJB. Maybe it is an "extension" that postgresql driver
> should also have?
>
> If this "extension" is not available then reversedb must iterate through
> every table and do very many getPrimeryKeys, this will probably need a
> lot more computer power?
If I understand this correctly, if we were to implement this
functionality in the PostgreSQL driver, the driver would have to iterate
thru every table, so the only difference is where the iteration is done
(reversedb X postgresql driver).
> Anders
>
> --
> Anders Hermansen
> YoYo Mobile as
--
[]'s
Daniel Serodio
