More BIT datatype mess?
More BIT datatype mess?
Create table:
create table bit_and_others_table
( b_10 bit(10),
b_ bit,
bool_ boolean
)
When selecting data, the b_10 column comes back as a TBooleanField? This seems incorrect. Is there any length recognition for the BIT datatype?
--
Martijn Tonies
Upscene Productions
create table bit_and_others_table
( b_10 bit(10),
b_ bit,
bool_ boolean
)
When selecting data, the b_10 column comes back as a TBooleanField? This seems incorrect. Is there any length recognition for the BIT datatype?
--
Martijn Tonies
Upscene Productions
When working with BIT datatypes with a length of >2, this might be useful:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/ ... alues.html
I guess it shouldn't always come back as a TBooleanField and the component needs to be changed.
Can you confirm?
--
Martijn Tonies
Upscene Productions
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/ ... alues.html
I guess it shouldn't always come back as a TBooleanField and the component needs to be changed.
Can you confirm?
--
Martijn Tonies
Upscene Productions
Sorry, but I fail to see the problem here.
Thing is: supplying us Delphi-guys with a TBooleanField is simply wrong for BIT(> 1).
For example, the Microolap guys just introduced BIT support:
Can't you do this for BIT(>1)? Actually, you SHOULD do this, given that the current BIT-support implementation is crippled.
--
Martijn Tonies
Upscene Productions
Thing is: supplying us Delphi-guys with a TBooleanField is simply wrong for BIT(> 1).
For example, the Microolap guys just introduced BIT support:
Which makes sense, given that there's a max of 64 bits to be supported in the BIT datatype.[+] BIT datatype support. Fields are represented like TLargeintField (int64).
Can't you do this for BIT(>1)? Actually, you SHOULD do this, given that the current BIT-support implementation is crippled.
--
Martijn Tonies
Upscene Productions
Any news on this? What are your plans on solving this?
As far as I can see, there are two issues here:
1) flawed implementation for BIT with a length > 1
2) problems in the implementation with the Prepared protocol and MyDAC.
For (1) I would say: use some kind of integer based TField instead of a TBooleanField.
For (2), I sent you two e-mail addresses of people with the MySQL crew that are willing to help, IF there is a problem.
--
Martijn Tonies
Upscene Productions
As far as I can see, there are two issues here:
1) flawed implementation for BIT with a length > 1
2) problems in the implementation with the Prepared protocol and MyDAC.
For (1) I would say: use some kind of integer based TField instead of a TBooleanField.
For (2), I sent you two e-mail addresses of people with the MySQL crew that are willing to help, IF there is a problem.
--
Martijn Tonies
Upscene Productions
> 1) flawed implementation for BIT with a length > 1
MySQL API doesn't provide ability to distinguish BIT(1) and BIT(>1). So, from nearest build all MySQL 5 BIT fields, including BIT(1), will be represented as TLargeintField.
> 2) problems in the implementation with the Prepared protocol and MyDAC.
> I sent you two e-mail addresses of people
We will contact them at nearest time.
MySQL API doesn't provide ability to distinguish BIT(1) and BIT(>1). So, from nearest build all MySQL 5 BIT fields, including BIT(1), will be represented as TLargeintField.
> 2) problems in the implementation with the Prepared protocol and MyDAC.
> I sent you two e-mail addresses of people
We will contact them at nearest time.