[Draft #2] Samba 3.0 roadmap...idmap storage & central idmap repository

[Simo Sorce]

On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 22:59, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> But Simo, I disagree about the internal rep. I think it
> needs to be utf8 for Samba internal strings. We already
> have to deal with mbcs issues - this doesn't make it any
> worse.

Have you thought how difficult is to effectively use utf8 strings?
search/replace/uppercase/lowercase?
it is very difficult to manipulate correctly utf8 strings without
introducing errors. I already experimented working with ucs2 null
terminated strings and it is way more easy and less prone to errors.
a character is always 2 bytes long and a byte codification doesn't
change meaning based on which place do it takes inside a string.
And substituting/manipulating characters in a string do not change the
string length with ucs2!

Can you instead tell me what are benefits of using utf8?

-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce at xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l.
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20020709/f57bd5a9/attachment.bin