Thread: Re: [HACKERS] PL/Java issues

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Dave
On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 20:21, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Will we need to address this TODO item:
>
>   . Add capability to create and call PROCEDURES
>
> before proceding to do PL/Java? It would add to the usefulness greatly,
> I should think. I'm not sure how hard it would be.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
>       joining column's datatypes do not match
>
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 1467551

Dave Cramer said:
> Can you explain what you mean by this?
>
> On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 20:21, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Will we need to address this TODO item:
>>
>>   . Add capability to create and call PROCEDURES
>>
>> before proceding to do PL/Java? It would add to the usefulness
>> greatly,  I should think. I'm not sure how hard it would be.
>>

Well, it is syntactically unclean IMNSHO to have to define a return type
on an SP when you don't really need one, and to have to call it by
saying "select foo(bar)" rather than "call foo(bar)". Also, IIRC PL/SQL
lets you bind host language variables to OUT parameters of such SPs, which
can be quite useful. (It's a year or three since I touched Oracle in
anger.)

I would be mildly surprised if the SQL/JRT standard didn't expect to be
able to bind to static methods of type void.

(The item I quoted is on the TODO list - I didn't invent it ;-)

cheers

andrew