Mike Matrigali wrote:
It would be good to see clear documentation of this feature as a
non-standard
implementation, maybe with some note that if a standard comes in this
area we
may change the behavior to match it.
After reviewing everyone's input I think that I'd be ok if we go ahead
with the extension in this particular case, if we have such a disclaimer
in the documentation. Is this acceptable to all?
It does feed temptation to do something similar with DERBY-728 (DRDA
UNICODEMGR), so maybe it does grease the slope a bit, but we can discuss
that *later* if needed.
Kathey
