Iain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For my part, I've never used any of those calls.
>
> FWIW, I always use reference objects such as "Integer" as opposed to
> "int" so I've never done it that way. All calls to setObject or
> set<Anything> would always use a variable which is typed (and may be
> null) my assumption is that I avoid all such ambiguities that way.
Just to clarify.. these calls are typed:
setInt(i, 42);
setObject(i, new Integer(42));
setObject(i, new Integer(42), Types.INTEGER);
setObject(i, null, Types.INTEGER);
setNull(i, Types.INTEGER);
setObject(i, new PGline(...), Types.OTHER);
These calls are not (sufficiently) typed:
setObject(i, null);
setObject(i, (Integer)null); // (*)
setObject(i, null, Types.OTHER);
setNull(i, Types.OTHER);
Types.OTHER on its own is not specific enough to identify a particular
backend type, and Java nulls have no inherent type ('instanceof' will
always return false).
From your description it sounds like you may use the case marked (*) ?
-O
