Indeed, the length would still take two bytes and with these two bytes we'd be able to take it up to 65535 in length.
After talking with Kathey on IRC, I do agree that we might be deviating from the standard with this. Can we still claim to be standard-compliant if we make an exception for this. Can we pin this as an extension to DRDA? In truth, making this change would be as easy as changing a codepoint but I think the issue here is standard compliance. Kathey suggested that we'd turn this into a new JIRA issue and that we'd try to get it through opengroup to change the standard to allow larger lengths. I'm torn on this issue to be honest... Tiago ----- Original Message ---- From: Dag H. Wanvik <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, 14 September, 2010 0:02:49 Subject: Re: Database name length Kathey Marsden <[email protected]> writes: > Does anyone know if there are other clients besides derby client that > might be working and expected to continue to work against Derby? I don't, but even if there were some, they would continue to work if they do indeed work with the present server, since the encoding of the db name length (2 bytes) would be unchanged, if I understood this correctly. Dag
