> There's a difference between generating the script and being
> ABLE to insert BLOB values like this. The latter is missing,
> but it would allow you to insert a JAR.

As I say - I never felt a need to insert BLOB contents as text (except
the SUB_TYPE 1, but that works anyway). And what can be its purpose
except generating a script? Applications can insert BLOBs in more
efficient way via prepared statements.

But supporting standard is a strong argument and I'm not going to
argue againt it.

> If Firebird would understand the X'<hex values>' syntax, any tool
> could execute such a script.

True, but what's the point in it? Being able to dump database contents
into the text file and recreate it on the other server? What's wrong
with the backup then?

> If the Firebird client would understand a "FROM FILE" part, it would
> be able to load a file from the client and send it to the server as
> a blob? stream ...

This does not belong to the client library. It is not the job of the
client library to interpret SQL being passed. Either application
before actually passing it to the server or database engine itself.

Roman