Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Agreed. We probably have to rewrite most of it anyway if/when we're going to add support for more encodings. -- Knut Anders
