Dan,
On 8/23/06, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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?
%20 (and other URL escapes) previously worked
thanx,
doug
Dan.
