MIDRANGE dot COM Mailing List Archive



Home » JAVA400-L » February 2008

Re: jt400 timestamp issue



fixed


Hi Mike,

First, I want to acknowledge credit where credit is due, and that is to
Carl. How many of us knew about the 8099 limitation? I've written JDBC
tutorials, and I'll own up. Good catch, Carl.

My suggestion is to change your 9999 dates to 8099. You do have this
soft coded somewhere, right? OK, probably not. I do in a similar situation
in another database where they used a "small" time verison, to save space, I
guess. Even if yours is not soft coded, I'd advise biting the bullet and
changing to 8099 (or another date whose value indicates your need.)
Changing to use nulls sounds good, but causes extra coding, like three-way
values, all over the place. I'm thinking SQL needs default "forever" and
"never" dates instead of us having to roll our own. HTH,


Joe Sam

Joe Sam Shirah - http://www.conceptgo.com
conceptGO - Consulting/Development/Outsourcing
Java Filter Forum: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/
Just the JDBC FAQs: http://www.jguru.com/faq/JDBC
Going International? http://www.jguru.com/faq/I18N
Que Java400? http://www.jguru.com/faq/Java400

----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Cunningham" <mcunning@xxxxxxx>
To: "'Java Programming on and around the iSeries / AS400'"
<java400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:39 AM
Subject: RE: jt400 timestamp issue


It is a field used for when an account will expire. For fulltime employees
it is set to 12/31/9999 (highest value allowed) since fulltime employees
are hired forever or until HR says they left. Part-timers and special
accounts are set to a known exit date that is know when they are hired so
we can re-verify the account is still needed or delete it

-----Original Message-----
From: java400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:java400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Gibbs
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:28 AM
To: Java Programming on and around the iSeries / AS400
Subject: Re: jt400 timestamp issue

Mike Cunningham wrote:
Why would the year 9999 be an invalid year? It will occur eventually

But you're not using it as a real year, are you? You're using it as a
symbolic value to indicate something special.

Or are your sales forecasts going out that far? :)

david

--
IBM System i - For when you can't afford to be out of business

--
This is the Java Programming on and around the iSeries / AS400 (JAVA400-L)
mailing list
To post a message email: JAVA400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/java400-l
or email: JAVA400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/java400-l.

--
This is the Java Programming on and around the iSeries / AS400 (JAVA400-L)
mailing list
To post a message email: JAVA400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/java400-l
or email: JAVA400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/java400-l.







Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact