Sorry to continue to meddle, but once ideas start flowing, it's hard to stop them.
If anyone wanted to implement user defined record encodings, here is one way to do it: 1. Add a clause to "create table" to specify an encoding name 2. Add a parameter to the configuration files to map encoding name to loadable library name 3. Extend RDB$FORMATS to include an encoding name 4. Extend RDB$RELATIONS accordingly 5. Define a encoding/decoding API 6. Etc. Since the encoding name would be registered in RDB$FORMATS, a change in encoding would be upwards compatible -- existing records would retain the scheme in effect when they were last updated, but new records would be encoded with whatever was in effect. It would require a minor ODS for an initial implementation (major unless you guys take the time to allow extensions to system tables), but thereafter encoding schemes could be added at will for either experimental purposes or for table specific special schema. Whether this is worth doing is a decision I will leave to others. Jim Starkey ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
