db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mamta Satoor" <msat...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Collation implementation WAS Re: Should COLLATION attribute related code go in BasicDatabase?
Date Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:47:44 GMT
Great. That's exactly what I was looking for, ie to make sure that I
understand correctly that it won't get called with today's design.

thanks again,

On 3/21/07, Daniel John Debrunner <djd@apache.org> wrote:
> 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.
> Dan.

View raw message