Knut Anders Hatlen wrote: >Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >Hi Kathey, if I understand you correctly, your question is: "Can we >assume that the Derby client driver is talking to a Derby network >server?" If we answer yes to that question (which I think we should), >I would go for option 1 as long as the network server always sends >Fdoca as UTF-8. > >In my opinion, there is one additional question we need to ask: Do we >always want the network server to send Fdoca as UTF-8, or should it >sometimes use another encoding? Issues with performance or >functionality might make us want to support other encodings. For >instance, UTF-16 is a much better choice for Chinese text because you >need only two bytes per character instead of three bytes per >character. If we think it's likely that we are going to support more >encodings, option 2 sounds like a better choice. > > > That's a good point. I have no plans to do that kind of work but perhaps someone else has an interest in it. I'd say if it is not planned for the near term we go with option 1. The existing untested code is only likely to become more broken, confusing, and deceptive over time.
Kathey
