> Yup. Anyone can do anything. The question is architectural: Does the
> new feature fit the architecture or does it introduce a whole set of new
> crocky set of rules that upper layers had to deal with.
>
> In this case, Vlad is trying to implement a feature on the cheap that
> doesn't quite work. Rather than designing it to work with the existing
> architecture *or* proposing an alternative architecture that handles
> both cases consistently, he is suggesting that we ignore architecture
> and pass the problem to client(s). Yes, it can be done. Should it be
> done? Not my call. Will it lead to more problems than solutions?
> Probably yes.

You so frequent say that i (and all other FB devs) violate architecture
but never answers - how and when i (we) do it. It seems you are the only
who know where architecture lies and what restrictions it imposes.

I am do not see where my proposal breaks existing architecture (architecture
of what ? firebird ? odbc\jdbc ? something else ?), and you never answer on
any concrete question, just criticize in common words. This can't help to solve
any issue.

Vlad