Oliver Jowett wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 12:39:45PM -0400, Dima Tkach wrote:
>
>
>>The problem with this (and other similar suggestions in this thread -
>>like use PGArray etc.) is that the app will not even compile with
>>postgres jdbc classes.
>>The whole point in using jdbc interfaces is to abstract the application
>>from the particular driver implementation.
>>
>>
>
>My current approach is what Fernando suggested -- use setArray() and look
>for a preceeding IN. This can work without needing any postgres specific
>classes -- I'll add a simple implementation of java.sql.Array that wraps a
>Java array to the driver source, but if you don't want to be dependent on
>the driver you can provide your own implementation.
>
>
Why not just allow setObject() to take Collection as an argument?
You would not need any special implementations then... and the
application would not need to waste cycles on wrapping/unwrapping those
Arrays every time...
Dima