Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Barry Lind wrote:
>
>>Scott,
>>
>>That makes sense because null takes a different code path than a real
>>value. Thanks for the test case. I will look into this.
>
>
> But I don't think you're supposed to use setObject for a null
> value. Instead, try
>
> setNull(1, Types.INTEGER)
Hmm. Yeah, I guess the API docs don't really describe what setObject is
supposed to do on null. But setNull(1, Types.INTEGER) seems to have the
same problem.
Thanks,
Scott
