Roman Rokytskyy escreveu:

>>> Also, you removed EXTERNAL keyword from original implementation. What is the
>>> reasons for it ?
>>>
>>>
>> I changed EXTERNAL NAME to ENTRY_POINT. It makes things more likely UDFs
>> are. Also EXTERNAL NAME seems not good inside an EXTERNAL FUNCTION
>> declaration.
>>
>
> AFAIK, EXTERNAL NAME is defined in the SQL standard,

Yes, see it now.

> and for me it looks unnatural to say that "com.mycompany.SomeBusinessClass.someMethod" is an
> entry point in Java...

Ok... Anyway, another reason for ENTRY_POINT was reuse of
RDB$FUNCTIONS.ENTRY_POINT.

I would not like to introduce another field meaning the same thing as
UDF entrypoint there, or introduce in RDB$PROCEDURES a field with
different name than the one used for functions.

So could we use RDB$ENTRY_POINT in both tables for EXTERNAL NAME?

What you think?


Adriano