JDBC: why is PGobject class instead of interface? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bear Giles
Subject JDBC: why is PGobject class instead of interface?
Date
Msg-id 200201070000.RAA11675@eris.coyotesong.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: JDBC: why is PGobject class instead of interface?  (Holger Krug <hkrug@rationalizer.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
In the JDBC binding, why is PGobject a class instead of an interface?

This is a moot issue when creating a type from scratch, but Java
contains a large number of standard classes (not interfaces) for
PKIX objects so I'm in a bind when trying to create my own JDBC
extensions. 

Specifically, some of the key mappings (no pun intended) are:
 hugeint   <-> java.language.BigInteger principal <-> java.security.Principal x509      <->
java.security.cert.X509Certificatex509_crl  <-> java.security.cert.X509CRL
 

and some additional metamappings between pkcs8 and java.security.KeyStore.

I can implement the mapping by casting between the objects and text,
but if a type extension mechanism is available it would be nice to be
able to hide those details from the user.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bear Giles
Date:
Subject: Re: pgcryto strangeness...
Next
From: Bear Giles
Date:
Subject: Announcement: libpkixpq 0.3 - with limited OpenPGP support