Roman Rokytskyy wrote:

>>We already have a ResultSet implemented with three implementations,
>>one inside of Vulcan, one in the layered IscDbc interface, and one
>>inside the ODBC driver. Unless there is a very strong reason to the
>>contrary, we don't need another bloody one.
>>
>>
>
>If that's about the name, it can be changed. But I agree with Adriano
>(and I wrote that already before) that type conversion is not needed
>in our case.
>
>
>
>

In that case, I reject your proposal. It breaks the layering, it is
insufficient to scope to evaluation, and violates existing internal
conventions.

If and when you return with an amended proposal, I will be perfectly
willing to consider it. But the current proposal is too flawed to
justify further consideration.


--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376