On 11/14/11 02:59, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: > On 13-11-2011 19:48, Alexandre Benson Smith wrote: >> I understand that such improvement could be hard to implement because of >> the changes on the API and that the access libraries must be recoded for >> such change, this could be a reason to post pone this modification, but >> the argument that the other RDBMS don't support it so we should not >> support it either didn't convince me. >> > In my opinion, DSQL XSQLVAR's should be make as it is now forever. It > was done bad, and change it would be bad too. >
+1 > So, it's just a fact of allow it with the new API. And then there must > be a way to libraries uses bits of the new API mixed with old one. > May be I do not understand what you mean here... Why mix? > The increase of it is not difficult. I had it working for true 31-chars > UTF-8 names AFAIR. > > It's unlike that the new limit would be greater than 63 UTF-8 > characters, as 64 * 4 > 255 (blr limitation for names). Do we plan to have a special case for ascii? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
