Arno Brinkman wrote:

>Hi,
>
>
>
>>Right idea, wrong direction. Removing limits is all well and good, but
>>let's do it while transforming the engine from a SQL interpreter layered
>>on BLR to a proper SQL engine. We need to continue to support the BLR
>>API, but we don't really need to extend it.
>>
>>
>
>If the BLR doesn't get extended, but we want to support more than 255 streams the BLR shouldn't be
>used anymore (for example by VIEWS/PROCEDURES) or am i missing something?
>
>
>

Since no BLR based program currently uses anywhere near 255 streams, we
aren't creating a backwards incompatibility but an incentive to cut over
to a better API. Or we could just add a blr_rse2 with a two byte count.

In any case, I'm inclined to think that anybody with over 200 streams
has a serious problem with application design.



--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376