I think the comment in thr source needs to be updated, as it's not that
accurate now.
There's two sides to the problem, the main one is that we don't yet fully
support all the necessary methods required for compliancy (which is what the
tests check). Also CallableStatement has never been implemented (it's just a
stub at the moment), and were only just starting on implementing the ODBC
style escape syntax.
The SQL92 reference is so that simple queries can be written, and they will
work for all compliant drivers without changing the calling code.
Peter
--
Peter Mount
Enterprise Support
Maidstone Borough Council
Any views stated are my own, and not those of Maidstone Borough Council.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Shraibman [mailto:jks@selectacast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 3:36 AM
To: Gunnar R|nning
Cc: Janossy Gergely; pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] jdbc driver: Why it isn't jdbcCompliant?
I wasn't making a point. I was just including the comment from the
source code to tell why jdbcCompliant() returns false, namely that
postgresql isn't sql 92 compliant.
Gunnar R|nning wrote:
>
> Joseph Shraibman <jks@selectacast.net> writes:
>
> Yes - your point being ? I think that you will find that most JDBC drivers
> out there do not implement the spec. to the letter. But using good OO
> design principles and adapters you can easily use a subset of the
spec(plus
> your favorite non SQL 92 database extensions) together with appropriate
> adaptors to keep things fairly easy to port between databases. The four
> databases that I know best Sybase ASE, PosgreSQL, Progress V9.1 and MySQL
> do not fully implement the JDBC spec. But then again I think SQL 92 is the
> same story...
>
> Regards,
>
> Gunnar
>
> > >From the Driver source code:
>
> > public boolean jdbcCompliant()
> > {
> > return false;
> > }