ADBA feedback

[Lukas Eder]

Also (see my other mail):  ParameterizedRowOperation.set()  and
SqlBlob.setPosition(long
offset)

2018-04-27 16:13 GMT+02:00 Mark Rotteveel <mark at lawinegevaar.nl>:

> On 27-4-2018 16:10, Douglas Surber wrote:
>
>> Where is ADBA 1-based? I don’t think there are any other places where it
>> uses indexes at all.
>>
>
> I'm going by the example Lukas posted mentioning that "Row.get() is still
> 1-based".
>
> In any case, I think closer alignment to SQL and existing JDBC practices
> might be more important, so my choice would be to go for 1-based.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>> On Apr 27, 2018, at 3:02 AM, Mark Rotteveel <mark at lawinegevaar.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26-4-2018 22:44, Douglas Surber wrote:
>>>
>>>> 6) Why is Row.rowNumber() zero based? That's very confusing. E.g.
>>>>> Row.get()
>>>>> is still 1-based, and all SQL databases that support either ROWNUM or
>>>>> ROW_NUMBER() OVER () functions will produce 1-based row numbers
>>>>>
>>>> Because everything else in Java is zero based. If the consensus is to
>>>> change this, that’s fine with me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Given JDBC is 1-based, the SQL standard is 1-based, and other parts of
>>> ADBA are also 1-based, I think following the principle of least surprise
>>> and use 1-based here as well would be a better choice.
>>>
>>> The only part where this runs afoul is things like
>>> `Result.getIdentifiers` returning a (0-based) array. Maybe add an explicit
>>> warning about it being 0-based there.
>>>
>>> The alternative would be to make the whole of ADBA 0-based, but that is
>>> likely more confusing for people used to JDBC and SQL 1-based behavior.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>> --
>>> Mark Rotteveel
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mark Rotteveel
>