db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Collation implementation WAS Re: Should COLLATION attribute related code go in BasicDatabase?
Date Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:38:09 GMT
Mamta Satoor wrote:
> I understand point 2. My question was an attempt to understand point 1, 
> ie why and when will we need to change the collate from TERRITORY_BASED 
> to UCS_BASIC? I know that we will need this support in future when we 
> will support the SQL's COLLATE clause. For instance, on a CAST, SQL spec 
> allows you to specify COLLATE clause. In a case like that, when we do 
> start supporting COLLATE clause, we might need to go from 
> TERRITORY_BASED to UCS_BASIC. When you mention 1) in the mail below, is 
> that the use case you were thinking of this method in CollatorSQLChar? 
> Or is there already a need today with the current design, that we will 
> want to go from TERRITORY_BASED collation to UCS_BASIC collation?

Probably only when having the collate clause.

Not overriding the method would be incorrect, overriding it with the 
correct implementation is good (though it may not be called yet), 
overriding it with a method that does a SanityManager.THROWASSERT() is 
also ok if it's not expected to be called.


View raw message