Oh no, not Unicode again

[Steve Kellogg]

Here's MY opinions on this (for what it's worth).


On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 06:30 AM, Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:

> QUESTIONS:
>
> -- Classic still important ?
>    or Carbon is enough ?
>    classic can do Unicode work ?
>
>

Only Carbon matters at this point...

> -- show we have the same and only
>             String and VarChar fields
>
>    with addition of 'encoding' parameter?
>    although this way looks to be hard for UTF16
>
>
> -- or we should get new 2 fields
>
>             UString
>             UVarChar
>
>     how other dbs do this ?
>

Either way is fine, BUT I'd PREFER a way that does not REQUIRE the 
developer to make substantial changes to source code just to move up to 
a new version of Valentina.  Every time this happens (the name of a 
method changes, etc), we're 'FORCED' to upgrade our projects knowing 
that 'DOWNGRADING' will be substantially more difficult.  While this is 
rarely a big deal to do ONCE, it prevents us from QUICKLY trying a beta 
release to see if it works reliably, while still having the choice to 
easily move back to a RELEASE version.

Thanks


Steve

Steve Kellogg
Senior Engineering
Mezzo Technologies
www.mezzotechnologies.com