| From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: patch for getXXX methods |
| Date: | 2004-07-12 14:50:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1089643844.1515.337.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
The reason I use the Double.... is because I am assuming it is faster,
if this is not true, then there is no reason to use your suggestion.
Dave
On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 10:36, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
> > Oliver,
> >
> > Yes, and this is why I needed to do it for getLong, but I don't think
> > it's necessary for getInt, getByte, as it is really just to test to see
> > if it is greater than the max allowed value.
>
> Sure, but my original comment was that I would like to see a consistent
> approach for all conversions, not one approach for longs and another for
> the other types.
>
> -O
>
>
>
> !DSPAM:40f2a228268032766713856!
>
>
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Jowett | 2004-07-12 15:06:30 | Re: patch for getXXX methods |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2004-07-12 14:36:37 | Re: patch for getXXX methods |