In Null.vb we can see that NullInteger returns -1. However, integer is a very big range (from -2^31 (-2.147.483.648) to 2^31-1 (2.147.483.647)) and having Null to be equivalent to -1 breaks the logic that seems to work for the other data types (they return .MinValue as null).

The fact is that, in our database, most of the integers are that, integers, and -1 is often used as -1. With this implementation of Null.vb when our database returns null or returns -1 it seems to be the same but it is not. We are using CBO.FillCollection that calls to CreateObject, that finally calls to Null.SetNull(objPropertyInfo) which has the wrong implementation (from our point of view).

As a workaround we should use System.Single data type in all our tables in our database which is simply not an option due to the oversize of that data type (it doubles the database size) and performance issues.

Is there any intention to change this behaviour and make NullInteger return Integer.MinValue instead of -1? It would be great. If this change is not expected to be done, what other feasible workarounds do you suggest for this problem?

Regards.