User Defined Types

[Jacob Barrett <Ja...@Attachmate.com>]

Anyone planning on putting them back in?  Looking through the source it
looks like most of it is there, just missing the coded to create tables
that support that type.  I am working on it, but if someone else is too
I would love to work together.

--
Jacob S. Barrett
Senior Software Engineer
Attachmate Corporation
Phone: 360-715-1170 x247
Email: jacobba@attachmate.com

Re: User Defined Types

[Peter Yuill <py...@objectix.com.au>]

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:08:52 +0200, "Jan Hlavatý" <hl...@code.cz> said:
> You don't need to be "nonstandard" to get ahead of most "enterprise"
> databases - simple full
> implementation of SQL99 will do ;) Most of them never got past the
> entry-level of SQL92,

Agreed. In my earlier post I should have used the term
"extra-SQL-standard functionality" instead of "non-standard
functionality". I am certainly not advocating any implementation
contrary to the SQL standard, rather functionality that is outside the
standard. Some of that is already standardized elsewhere eg Open GIS
Consortium "Simple Features for SQL". My concern is facilitation of
innovation. As far as data types go I think SQL99 User Defined Types
should do that.

Peter Yuill

Re: User Defined Types

[Jan Hlavatý <hl...@code.cz>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter Yuill wrote:
> Cloudscape was being
> positioned as a stepping stone to enterprise DBMS products, so it should
> only implement standard types.

Yes, the politics. Avoid being too good, or users wont be able to use the "enterprise"
databases you are supposed to sell them one day ;-)
I strongly hope we wont take THAT road...
You don't need to be "nonstandard" to get ahead of most "enterprise" databases - simple full
implementation of SQL99 will do ;) Most of them never got past the entry-level of SQL92,
and went their own way from there, ignoring any standards in the intent of locking customers in...

Speaking of which, I would really like the SQL99 datatypes, like, yes, BOOLEAN!

I found the spec here (ansi-iso-9075-*-1999.pdf):

http://www.ncb.ernet.in/education/modules/dbms/SQL99/

Jan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQTkxwnFDePgyse5HAQJNLAf/YYfCW2K6q41oiJBEoX5XBj0HosMo512X
IJcCjiv+VCu4lCmpbC7aqBjvk/B53W0DpIgIiDSQvVdvfrnG/SXsQ6xVYmzo9phw
zBFenIMYwSmIJ37OTURcoqQNoIJy/AXCq/Rm6YhDBGe98jztBSkXSqoFOWjUPrmd
tOQb/YGhSAqGWrQdeZeyRRrEC5S1iTYHz5Y3g+/e5ejvcoO20mnvM37sbZruUBp1
BQq5/zol9CVHv9haUg/0IAUh1IaMH1n2886cZKJFQWbcLisZKKIx3Hgc42VIds2R
Qtj78/fVXsHz/0SRBYeIOqy80F3rr1JHRTHPksaoBBV7h1lkMiXx6A==
=3nSz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: User Defined Types

[Peter Yuill <py...@objectix.com.au>]

> Anyone planning on putting them back in?  Looking through the source it
> looks like most of it is there, just missing the coded to create tables
> that support that type.  I am working on it, but if someone else is too
> I would love to work together.

There is a thread on this topic in the Cloudscape devel list. My summary
of the thread is that user defined types were removed by IBM very
recently on the theory that they are not portable. Cloudscape was being
positioned as a stepping stone to enterprise DBMS products, so it should
only implement standard types.

I find that explanation flawed on a number of counts.
1) Anyone using User Defined Types knows they are not portable.
2) There is a growing list of important non-standard functionality that
needs user defined types (eg spatial).
3) Almost all "Enterprise" products implement User Defined Types at some
level (to support item 2).
4) Derby is a real piece of software in its own right, and many of us
want it to do non-standard things.

I strongly suspect that if User Defined Types are kept out of Derby then
the code base will be used by a new project that wants them in. Putting
them back into Derby sounds like a much better plan.

Peter Yuill