Markus Kemper <mkemper@...> writes:

>I disagree. Now is a great time to start taking about these
>things. 6.0 is in stone from a feature perspective. Let's
>start shaping the future.

Great!

>RE: UDFs vs core functions
>
>I think there is a balance here. I'd like to see more 'basic'
>functions in the engine. My top 10 (in order) are:
>
> str_to_blob()
> blob_to_str()

Why not just casting?

> sub_str()
> r_trim()
> l_trim()
> str_len()

I'd like to see the same names as those used in at least one other product.
:-)

For example, DB2 has length() rather than str_len(), substr() rather than
sub_str(), rtrim() rather than r_trim(), etc. Incidentally, they all work
on blobs as well as strings which would be extremely useful to me.

Overloading is pretty nifty, but I don't know if there is any internal
impact from doing that.

>Perhaps we could encourage projects in the community to
>develop targeted open source UDF libraries (eg. math, spatial,
>multi-media, encryption, etc.) and InterBase Corp could
>certify, endorse and support them officially.

What would the process for getting certification and endorsment look like?
I must admit that suggesting doesn't sound quite right to me.

Jan Mikkelsen
janm@...