On 10/14/10 13:14, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:

> Alex Peshkoff wrote:
>
>> Yes. I just do not want to create such problems from nothing. I
>> understand very well why we needed OldParameterOrdering (to have new
>> correct ordering in normal cases) and OldColumnNaming (to be normally
>> standard compliant).
> IIRC, OldColumnNaming was added to please some users that didn't want to
> change their scripts relying on the column names printed in the ISQL
> output. It had nothing to do with the standard.
>

I've thought that new column naming was done according to standard.

>> It seems that good solution can be keeping old API as is, but in the
>> planned new one have correct (error without output SQLDA / message)
>> behavior.
> I'd expect both old and new API to deal with the same provider interface
> and of course with the same engine internals. Making the internal
> behavior dependent on the chosen public interface looks even worse to me.
>

Worse from programming POV, but may be good from users POV.
Well - let's wait and see the results of upgrade to 2.5.