[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4805?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13871156#comment-13871156
]
Kathey Marsden commented on DERBY-4805:
---------------------------------------
One option is to catch the protocol exception in this case and rethrow an SQL
exception. The problem with this approach is that it may mask a legitimate
protocol error. Another option is to just file a bug for the changed message
and leave it. RDBNAM < 255 will still work fine and it will just be that the
error message is worse with mixed server/client with RDBNAM > 255
> Increase the length of the RDBNAM field in the DRDA implementation
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-4805
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4805
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Network Client, Network Server
> Affects Versions: 10.7.1.1
> Reporter: Tiago R. Espinha
> Assignee: Mamta A. Satoor
> Labels: derby_triage10_9
> Attachments: DERBY4805_patch2_diff.txt, DERBY4805_patch2_stat.txt,
> DERBY_4805_diff_patch1.txt
>
>
> Currently, whenever the client driver is used, there is a limit of 255 bytes
> for the database name. This is defined by the DRDA spec and there has been a
> discussion on the list [1]/[2] as to whether this limit should be raised due
> to the introduction of the new ACR that allows for UTF-8 characters.
> UTF-8 characters can take up to four bytes and this reduces the limit in
> characters dramatically.
> This should be an easy change as there is a codepoint that defines this limit.
> [1] did not work but [2] did
> [1] - http://old.nabble.com/Database-name-length-tt29691419.html
> [2]http://apache-database.10148.n7.nabble.com/Database-name-length-td33182.html
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
