db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tiago Espinha <tiago.de...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: Database name length
Date Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:18:33 GMT
Indeed, the length would still take two bytes and with these two bytes we'd be 
able to take it up to 65535 in length.

After talking with Kathey on IRC, I do agree that we might be deviating from the 
standard with this. Can we still claim to be standard-compliant if we make an 
exception for this. Can we pin this as an extension to DRDA?

In truth, making this change would be as easy as changing a codepoint but I 
think the issue here is standard compliance.

Kathey suggested that we'd turn this into a new JIRA issue and that we'd try to 
get it through opengroup to change the standard to allow larger lengths.

I'm torn on this issue to be honest...


----- Original Message ----
From: Dag H. Wanvik <dag.wanvik@oracle.com>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Sent: Tue, 14 September, 2010 0:02:49
Subject: Re: Database name length

Kathey Marsden <kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> Does anyone know if there are other clients besides derby client that
> might be working and expected to continue to work against Derby?

I don't, but even if there were some, they would continue to work if
they do indeed work with the present server, since the encoding of the
db name length (2 bytes) would be unchanged, if I understood this



View raw message