Doug Bunting wrote: > Dan, > > I understand though I don't see anything in the JDBC specification > requiring spaces be allowed in a jdbc: scheme URL. Did I miss > something?
The JDBC 4 spec says "The contents and syntax of the subname will depend on the subprotocol.". Thus the format is implementation defined. Derby's database names are a reflection of file system names and those allow spaces and to be ease-of-use Derby allows direct use of File.getName()/getPath() without encoding. > My question was about a change which seems unnecessary moving the > jdbc:derby: scheme /further/ from RFC 3986. The incompatibility with > earlier Derby versions makes matters worse. What incompatibility? Dan.
