Other than Jim's suggestions, I have not seen any response in regards to
this.

Did I miss the email or is there no one working on the extending of the
database object name length?

Are schema's not going to be considered for version 3?

I am curious if anyone is looking at the implementation of these features?

On 23 April 2010 14:53, Jim Starkey <jstarkey@...> wrote:

>
>
> Dalton Calford wrote:
> > I have seen many discussions in regards to extending the length of
> database
> > object names or adding schema support.
> >
> > Have any decisions been made in regards to this? Who is the best person
> to
> > ask about the proposed DDL syntax/limits?
> >
> >
> The current limitation on identifier name length comes from the DSRI
> architecture which is based on VMS calling standard, circa 1982.
> Methinks it's less relevant to the modern world than it once was.
>
> A two level name space (schemas) is a very good idea. A word of
> caution, however. JDBC has three levels (database, schema, and object)
> that are essentially undefined. Firebird would be well advised to do
> only two, leaving the third for database aggregating middleware. MySQL
> took advantage of the opportunity to screw with up and made "database"
> and "schema" synonyms, confusing everyone in the process.
>
> --
> Jim Starkey
> Founder, NimbusDB, Inc.
> 978 526-1376
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]