Claudio Valderrama C. wrote:

>Why is it that bad to have fbintl2? Because people will swap different
>versions of it with different collations maybe?
>
>Do you think that renaming a field masks the intention and closes the
>discussion?
>
>
>

I think we should decide how we want loadable modules found in the
future. There are three non-exclusive candidates:

1. Builtin magic names, e.g. fbintl
2. Configuration file specified directories, which are scanned by
wildcard at runtime
3. Configuration file specified library names.

I'm inclined towards the latter. Any loadable module can compromise the
integrity of the database engine; they should be specified with great
care. The new configuration mechanism has places for both system
defined and installation specific files, providing backwards compatibility.

So, rather than hangle over the name of the intl file, let's decide what
we want to do going forward (post FB 2.0), then figure out what the best
solution is for the short time.

[Please note that I've moved the discussion from admin to architect, and
for once, am not double posting]