Subject | Re: [Firebird-Java] FBTimestampField and Longs |
---|---|
Author | Blas Rodriguez Somoza |
Post date | 2003-06-27T17:33:11Z |
Hello
At 27/06/2003 10:09 -0700, Robert DiFalco wrote:
in the standard, and we prefer to implement exactly the standard at least
until we have a full implementation of it.
Anyway, it don't seem too much work to use setTimestamp(new Timestamp(long)) or
getTimestamp(...).getTime().
If I'm not wrong I remember we discover some time ago that this is not a
good idea, since the value you get can be different from what you put
depending on your local time and the java version.
Regards
Blas Rodriguez Somoza
At 27/06/2003 10:09 -0700, Robert DiFalco wrote:
>Hi, I was wondering why the FBTimestamp field rejects setLong andNo it is not forbidden, but as it seems you know, this conversion it is not
>getLong. It seems like a relatively easy thing to do, but I didn't know
>if maybe there was a specific reason to not allow this -- i.e. it's
>specifically disallowed by the JDBC standard or some such.
in the standard, and we prefer to implement exactly the standard at least
until we have a full implementation of it.
Anyway, it don't seem too much work to use setTimestamp(new Timestamp(long)) or
getTimestamp(...).getTime().
If I'm not wrong I remember we discover some time ago that this is not a
good idea, since the value you get can be different from what you put
depending on your local time and the java version.
Regards
Blas Rodriguez Somoza