[snip]
> wasn't the whole thread. I agree with you that if we make setString
> default to UNKNOWN, there had better be a way to say "by golly this
> really is TEXT" for the corner cases. It'd be a good idea if it wasn't
> limited to TEXT, either, but could allow specification of any random
> datatype.
This makes me think, isn't it possible to introduce a special type to
say something like: setObject(..., Types.UNKNOWN), and map that to
setting a string with type unknown ? In that case people could still use
prepared statements with parameters of unknown type, it just have to be
explicit. For me that would have been a much simpler "fixing the app".
Cheers,
Csaba.