Oliver Jowett wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:27:30AM -0400, Dmitry Tkach wrote:
>
>
>
>>Why not just allow setObject() to take Collection as an argument?
>>
>>
>
>You need information on the SQL type of the contents to be able to turn them
>into a DB representation correctly. We can't use the type parameter to
>setObject() for this as that should reflect the whole paramater, i.e.
>probably Types.OTHER in this case.
>
It doesn't seem to be required anywhere - it just says "the type to be
sent to the database" in the description of that
argument. You can interpret it to be the type of the contents when
dealing with collections/sets/arrays
>
>Hah, and it's faster to wrap your array of ints in a bunch of
>java.lang.Integer objects so you can put in in a Collection? :)
>
>
>
Maybe, I had a List of Integers to begin with?
Or, perhaps, you'll be so kind to provide a smart implementation that
will understand arrays too, not just collections :-)
Dima
