I was thinking that parsing the double would be less efficient than
Byte.parseByte().
The spec suggests that the user would know what they are doing calling
getByte on a double column.
Dave
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 17:01, Kris Jurka wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> > Once possibility is to use Double.parseDouble(s).byteValue()
> >
> > so the code would become
> >
> > try
> > {
> > Byte.parseByte(s)
> > }
>
> Why bother with Byte.parseByte at all if you are going to fall back to the
> double parsing anyway? As I mentioned earlier I think it is better to
> throw an Exception rather than to silently alter the returned data.
>
> Kris Jurka
>
>
>
> !DSPAM:40eb133321082025652008!
>
>
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
