db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Boynes <jboy...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Identifier Limitations - once again
Date Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:15:18 GMT
Philipp Hug wrote:
> I know this has been discussed before, but there hasn't been a consus if 
> those limitations should be extended...

I don't believe we had consensus one way or the other.

IMHO, Derby should not be constrained by the capabilities of other 
products. We need to weigh this based on the problems for users in 
converting any on-disk image to support larger identifiers vs. the 
flexibility in using longer identifiers.

There is no consistency amongst "enterprise" vendors on a limit, with 
neither Oracle or DB2 supporting the specification's limit of 128 
characters across the board.

The ability to support more identifiers (and hence applications) than we 
  can at the moment can only be good for Derby. It will be easier for 
users to port applications from other databases (Oracle, SQL Server, 
MySQL, Cloudscape 9 :-), ...) as well as DB2. For users considering 
future upgrades to other servers this is a relatively minor issue to 
consider (compared to SQL syntax portability, procedure language, 
identity column issues, ...)

On the implementation front, this can be handled as a 'slushy' upgrade, 
with the 10.0 branch supporting the crippled version and others 
supporting longer identifiers unless constrained to 10.0 compatibility.

In conclusion, unless there is a good technical reason to stick with the 
current limits, I think we should increase them to 128 across the board.

--
Jeremy

Mime
View raw message