On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> Oliver Jowett, 28.07.2010 10:59:
>> It is not a bug. BOOLEAN does not exist in earlier JDBC versions,
>> and drivers can map boolean types to either BIT or BOOLEAN. We pick
>> BIT so we can build drivers for earlier JDBC versions. (BIT is
>> something of a confusing type, as the mappings defined by JDBC for
>> the JDBC BIT type only really make sense for a single boolean value,
>> not a SQL BIT(n) type)
>
> Wouldn't it make sense to map this to BOOLEAN if the driver is built for
> JDBC4 and to BIT if is built for JDBC3?
>
Actually BIT is JDBC2 and BOOLEAN is JDBC3. Since we no longer build
JDBC2 releases for the latest drivers, we could make this change, I'm just
not sure I see the point. I guess we'd get fewer of these complaints.
Kris Jurka
