Composite UDTs (ROW=22, COLLECTION=23, SET=19, MULTISET=20, LIST=21)
now decode into typed wrapper objects (informix_db.RowValue,
informix_db.CollectionValue) that expose schema + raw payload bytes.
The wire format is the now-familiar [byte ind][int length][bytes]
pattern (same as UDTVAR(lvarchar) from Phase 10). The bytes are a
TEXTUAL representation of the value when selected without the
extended-binary opt-in JDBC uses:
ROW value: b"ROW('Alice',30 )"
SET value: b"SET{'red','green','blue'}"
LIST value: b"LIST{10 ,20 ,30 }"
JDBC's binary-with-schema format runs ~30x larger (1420 bytes for a
2-field ROW vs. our 24). We don't request it — the textual form is
what the server returns by default and is sufficient for type
recognition.
Phase 12 ships type recognition only. Full recursive parsing into
Python tuples/lists/sets is deferred to Phase 13 (would require a
SQL-literal lexer + recursive type-driven decoding). Production
workloads that need typed field access today can project via SQL:
cur.execute("SELECT id, r.name, r.age FROM tbl")
Tests: 8 integration tests in test_composite_types.py covering ROW
recognition, NULL, sub-field projection workaround, long values
(>255 bytes — verifies 4-byte length prefix), SET/MULTISET/LIST
recognition, and null collections.
Total: 64 unit + 134 integration = 198 tests.
Lesson reinforced: once one UDT-shaped type is implemented (UDTVAR
in Phase 10, smart-LOB in Phase 9), every subsequent UDT-shaped type
is mostly a copy of the existing decoder branch. The hard part is
payload semantics, not framing.
Ryan Malloy
9048335462