db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kathey Marsden <kmarsdende...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: Database name length
Date Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:53:52 GMT
  On 9/13/2010 1:39 PM, Tiago Espinha wrote:
> I'm all for raising this limit if the community agrees that this does not
> violate the DRDA protocol. I think Kathey also expressed some concern about the
> limit on JIRA, so it would be interesting to hear her thoughts on this.
I guess I always thought of an extension as being something 
supplemental, like a new codepoint, not a modification of an existing 
one, but the truth is in terms of standards and DRDA compliance, DRDA is 
not part of our public interface so compliance is not as critical 
certainly as JDBC or SQL.  The real advantage of using DRDA is that the 
very extensive protocol is in a  documented reference.  I am fine with 
extensions or even deviations for Derby as long as we provide some sort 
of protocol supplement that explains them and are careful about 
maintaining it for future developers.

For things like this, that might be generally useful to DRDA, it might 
be nice if someone has to fortitude to shepherd it through the opengroup 
process and make it part of the standard then that will reduce the 
amount of supplemental documentation we have to provide.

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



View raw message