I think it is responsibility of the database application authors to account for any such limits of databse they intend to later upgrade to. They don't need to be forced to limit the names - they should know what they are doing. We should not limit others that don't intend to upgrade to these databases at all because of someone else might want to upgrade to database with severe limitations - otherwise we would end up implementing only the least common denominator of functionality. And thats not a way to bring progress ;-) It is not our fault that database vendors sabotaged the standards in order to remain exclusive and keep customers that would otherwise happily migrate to other databases that suit them better. Extending the allowed names length to SQL limits of 128 wont break any existing applications that use Derby/Cloudscape. We should do it.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
