Thread: Why JDBC 1?

Why JDBC 1?

From
Rene Pijlman
Date:
Perhaps this is a silly question, but why do we have separate
JDBC 1 and 2 drivers?

Isn't the JDBC 2 driver also an implementation of JDBC 1?

Regards,
René Pijlman <rene@lab.applinet.nl>

Re: Why JDBC 1?

From
Dave Cramer
Date:
Yes, it is, but many of the libraries, and methods which are used in
version 2 of the driver aren't available in jdk1 so it won't compile or
run.

Dave
On Tue, 2001-09-04 at 12:50, Rene Pijlman wrote:
> Perhaps this is a silly question, but why do we have separate
> JDBC 1 and 2 drivers?
>
> Isn't the JDBC 2 driver also an implementation of JDBC 1?
>
> Regards,
> René Pijlman <rene@lab.applinet.nl>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>




Re: Why JDBC 1?

From
Barry Lind
Date:
One reason is that jdbc2 goes along with Java2.  Thus in the jdbc2 tree
we are allowed to use new methods introduced in jdk1.2.  Whereas in the
jdbc1 tree we are limited to methods available in jdk1.1.

thanks,
--Barry

Rene Pijlman wrote:
> Perhaps this is a silly question, but why do we have separate
> JDBC 1 and 2 drivers?
>
> Isn't the JDBC 2 driver also an implementation of JDBC 1?
>
> Regards,
> René Pijlman <rene@lab.applinet.nl>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>



Re: Why JDBC 1?

From
Rene Pijlman
Date:
On 04 Sep 2001 13:22:33 -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
>> Isn't the JDBC 2 driver also an implementation of JDBC 1?
>Yes, it is, but many of the libraries, and methods which are used in
>version 2 of the driver aren't available in jdk1 so it won't compile or
>run.

Ah, I see. And I assume we support JDBC 1 for applets that need
to run in popular browsers with a JVM 1.

Has it been discussed before when and how we can stop
maintaining two versions?

Are people really still using JDBC 1?

Regards,
René Pijlman <rene@lab.applinet.nl>

Re: Why JDBC 1?

From
Tony Grant
Date:
On Fri, 2001-09-07 at 00:11, Rene Pijlman wrote:
> On 04 Sep 2001 13:22:33 -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> >> Isn't the JDBC 2 driver also an implementation of JDBC 1?
> >Yes, it is, but many of the libraries, and methods which are used in
> >version 2 of the driver aren't available in jdk1 so it won't compile or
> >run.
>
> Ah, I see. And I assume we support JDBC 1 for applets that need
> to run in popular browsers with a JVM 1.
>
> Has it been discussed before when and how we can stop
> maintaining two versions?
>
> Are people really still using JDBC 1?

I try and run everything on the server where possible so JDBC 2 here

Tony Grant

--
RedHat Linux on Sony Vaio C1XD/S
http://www.animaproductions.com/linux2.html
Macromedia UltraDev with PostgreSQL
http://www.animaproductions.com/ultra.html