On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 03:47:49AM +1200, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:26:11AM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
>
> > I think Dima is arguing that Collection could be treated as an special case
> > where it indicates a list of something instead of a single something.
> >
> > So, we would iterate through this Collection using its iterator and, for
> > each Object obtained, act like a setObject has been used with that Object
> > and the JAVA TYPE as an argument.
> >
> > The Types.OTHER is used for database specific SQL types or for Dynamic Data
> > Access support. As the Collection class is not a data type there is no
> > chance of confusion.
>
> Ya, I understand. My main objection is that setObject(n, object,
> Types.INTEGER), in all other cases, means "interpret object as an integer,
> or fail if it can't be cast in that way".
Also.. what would we do with this object?
public class AnnoyingObject implements java.util.Collection, java.sql.Array {
// ...
}
then setObject(n, new AnnoyingObject(), Types.ARRAY);
Is that an Array, or an IN clause of Arrays? :)
(Array is the obvious candidate for also being a Collection, but potentially
you could do it with other types too)
-O
