Knut Anders Hatlen <[email protected]> writes: > As to the possibility for a discrepancy between the maximum length in > client mode and embedded mode, I think we already have such a > discrepancy. The file system limit that prevents use of more than 255 > characters in a database name in embedded mode, applies to each > component of the path name. The total length of the path in the URL may > exceed 255 characters if none of the directory names in the path exceed > 255 characters. > > The 255 characters limit in the network client, on the other hand, > applies to the entire path in the URL, not to each component of the > path. Also, the network client will take any connection attributes (like > create=true) as part of the database name, whereas the embedded driver > will not. Increasing the maximum length accepted by the network client > should make it less likely that someone gets bitten by this difference > between the drivers.
I think this issue plus the new one that Tiago has encountered with varying byte lengths of UTF-8 encoded characters is a pretty strong argument for being pragmatic here, in the interest of user friendliness. We have two opposing principles at play here: a) Follow the standards, and b) make client and embedded behave as identically as possible. Since the DB2 client driver no longer supports Derby, I would vote for relaxing the 255 byte length restriction in the protocol. Dag
