-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> Yes it was the constraint names. I followed the thread "SQL/DDL
Limitations
> (and DB2)" but it did not seem to reach a conclusion as to whether or
not the
> size limitations were going to be addressed or when. Do you have any
further
> feedback on that?
>
> /joel
I think the only thing that was resolved was that it was for the
community to decide.
I personally think that this type of enhancement request is certainly
worthy of a JIRA entry. I looked but I didn't see one. Unfortunately
for this particular issue, we cannot turn to the standards. So, now
that we have branched, I think it would be an excellent time for some
enterprising community member to do the industry research on and present
a vote on changes that they:
1) Think are justified and useful.
2) Balance that usefulness with migration ability to and from Derby.
3) Are willing to implement and test.
I would probably classify this as a beginner Derby project.
since the underlying support for larger limits is there.
(But of course nothing is ever as easy as it seems)
As to whether it is better to approach the big limit question or just
this one really bothersome issue. I have no opinion.
Thanks
Kathey
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBt32aG0h36bFmkocRAuX3AKC0HCHA33bTPUYiD9S5hFM17lqqmgCffdDD
8tSBBgrV4YAHg+XOhOQOoaM=
=uq/w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
