> This is exactly what I don't understand-- the "general case". Why
> do we need to assume the above example should work? It assumes we
> can define stored procedures on any db with identical semantics. I
> haven't tried to find the part of the jdbc spec that discusses
> this, but I think this is unreasonable. If it is not explicitly
> required by the jdbc spec, I'd say go for simplicity. If it is
> required, I'd like to see where adn just what they say.

maybe you're right... maybe i just went the wrong way... I was
looking for the possibility to require changes only in the SQL
statement (or even without it) in order to be able to switch from one
DBMS to another (that's usually the thing you do in case of Statement
and PreparedStatement).

I was pretty sure, that the code sample I put in previous message was
used in the JDBC CTS. However it's not there...

This code was taken from that old JDBC certification tests:

callablestatement.setBytes(1, abyte0);
callablestatement.registerOutParameter(2, 4);
callablestatement.execute();
int i = callablestatement.getInt(2);

I'm not sure if this is the case. It's pretty clear that parameter
order is of big importance here, but this code is never used in the
JDBC CTS tests...

Thanks!
Roman