On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Bruno Harbulot <br...@distributedmatter.net > wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:50 PM, David G. Johnston < > david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Bruno Harbulot < >> br...@distributedmatter.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> While I can imagine a Java PostgreSQL driver that would use the libpq >>> syntax, I can't see it being able to have any useful sort of >>> half-compatibility with JDBC, whether it mimics its interfaces or not. I'm >>> not sure it would be very useful at all, considering how much the existing >>> tooling the the Java world relies on JDBC. >>> >>> >> I won't claim to have studied this in great detail but there is a lot >> more to the JDBC spec beyond the semantics of >> "PreparedStatement.parse(String)". No need to throw out the baby with the >> bath water and reinvent ResultSet, Connection and various other interfaces >> that are perfectly usable before and after a suitable query has been fully >> parsed. >> >> When I say "setInteger(1, new Integer(1000))" I don't care whether I had >> to write "SELECT ? AS int_val" OR "SELECT $1 AS int_val"; though the later >> has the nice property of providing corresponding numbers so that I would >> write something like "SELECT $1 AS int_val, $1 AS int_val_2" and not be >> forced to write "setInteger(2, new Integer(1000))" to pass in a value to >> the second - but identical - parameter. Maybe it violates the semantics >> defined by the API - which I could be making too lightly of - but having >> the same mechanics involved to solve the same problem - with only minor >> semantic nuances to remember seems within the realm of reasonable. >> >> >> > Yes, you're probably right. Nevertheless, I'm not sure why anyone would > switch to that format, knowing that other tools that are on top of JDBC > would certainly not work very well (e.g. Groovy SQL, JOOQ, or ORMs like > Hibernate, ...). > > Hadn't really pondered those :( though to be honest a compatibility layer to write out sequential $# instead of ? doesn't seem that difficult - but it would depend on the codebase of the tool. Unfortunately the driver wouldn't be in a position to do the work. David J
