Re: Timestamp vs. Java Date/Timestamp

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Andreas Reichel <
andreas(at)manticore-projects(dot)com> wrote:

> Dave,
>
> please find a test attached. I guess, I can shed some light on it in the
> meantime.
>
> To me it seems, that setDate()/getDate() indeed ignores any time values
> (hh:mm:ss.s) but parses the day-part only (yyyy-mm-dd).
> At the same time, setTimestamp()/getTimestamp() behaves correctly.
>
> (Note: in Postgres Date is Date only without Time, while Timestamp obeys
> the Time, I was not completely aware of this. I thought the only
> difference between Date and Timestamp is Milliseconds vs. Nanoseconds.)
>
>
And this is the crux of the matter SQL DATE does not have time in it. While
java.sql.Date being derived from java.util.Date does.

> On the same time java.sql.Date and java.util.Date support time
> information and in fact you can handover a java.sql.Date parameter to a
> Timestamp field.
>
> This is the part when I get confused: the timestamp field holds time
> information, the java.sql.Date parameter holds time information -- still
> it is cut off in the middle.
>
>
> Now I would like to suggest a couple of small changes:
> a) allow java.util.Date in setObject() and convert it into
> java.sql.Timestamp automatically
> b) keep the time info whenever setting/returning java.sql.Date to/from a
> Timestamp field
>
> However, for the moment I am fine as I understood now the need for using
> java.sql.Timestamp when working with time.
>
>
And I think that is the way it will remain. I'm afraid this would break way
more than it would fix

Dave Cramer

dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca