Xref: alice comp.databases.oracle.tools:32792
Path: alice!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.idt.net!netnews.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
From: coakleyj@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.tools
Subject: Re: JDBC vs ODBC
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:38:42 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <7t0770$bar$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <7st556$2cd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 30 17:38:42 1999 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x22.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 193.131.169.67
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDcoakleyj

Any updates - thanks

In article <7st556$2cd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  coakleyj@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi all.
> My understanding is that JDBC is the Java equivalent
> of ODBC - i.e a generic standard for connecting to
> RDBMSs from Java.
> Now, when developing with ODBC, it is generally the case
> that you could only use SQL92 SQL (unless of course you
> used SQLPASSTHROUGH). However, with JDBC, there doesn't
> seem to be any such restriction. It would appear that
> one can use any of the Oracle extensions (such as "decode"
> for example) as well as long and LOB datatypes.
>
> How is this the case if JDBC is a "generic standard"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Coakleyj
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.