Tiago Espinha wrote:
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.
Hi Tiago,
DRDA is not one of Derby's governing standards. It is not mentioned in
Derby's charter and the community has never voted to require DRDA
compliance. We are free not just to extend DRDA but to flatly violate it
if we need to. We use DRDA because:
1) It is a public protocol which has been designed carefully.
2) It actually works, as demonstrated by a couple implementations.
3) When we need new network functionality, we often find supporting
protocol already defined in this public, thoughtful, proven standard.
We do not make a general guarantee that any DRDA-speaking driver can
communicate with the Derby server. I am fairly confident that the Derby
client is the only DRDA-speaking driver that works with our server. It
is certainly the only driver we bother to test. A driver written for DB2
does communicate with early versions of the Derby server. However, we
have not tested that driver with recent Derby versions.
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.
Only one company has bothered to rent an expensive seat on the DRDA
committee. All of the other committee members are merely advisors, who
sanity-check but cannot initiate changes. Any change to DRDA would have
to come from the seat-holder. His name is James Pickel and he works for IBM.
I'm torn on this issue to be honest...
I am comfortable with extensions and deviations, provided that we
document them.
Hope this helps,
-Rick
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
