[Interest] Did the bound value handling changed in 5.x? If yes, why?

Constantin Makshin cmakshin at gmail.com
Fri May 24 19:00:25 CEST 2013

Your shorter (4.8) variant used fake query preparation in an undocumented
way. "Fake" means Qt emulated executing a prepared query by replacing
placeholders with appropriately formatted data and then sending the result
to the RDBMS, avoiding any possible advantage of "real" prepared queries on
databases that support them.

And, to be honest, I don't understand how changing/removing undocumented
stuff that happened to work in some cases can be considered a bug.
On May 24, 2013 1:40 PM, "Guido Seifert" <wargand at gmx.de> wrote:

> > That still means there's a bug. Either his first code shouldn't compile,
> > or it should work. That it compiles and runs but fails seems like the
> > worst possible.
> Yes and no. There is probably much more potential C++ code, which compiles,
> runs, but fails than there is correct code. Would be great if this wasn't
> the case. ;-)
> Nevertheless, I opened a bug report. Maybe the change was unintentional.
> I think my version could be a nice shorthand for the correct version.
> And if it was intentional maybe a boolean return value
> could be added to bindValue, which indicates correct value binding.
> Making it not compiling might be a bit difficult, since from a C++ point
> of view it is syntactically correct code.
> Guido
> --
> Guido Seifert <wargand at gmx.de>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20130524/60aed349/attachment.html>

More information about the Interest mailing list