[unixODBC-dev] iconv/ICU

Peter Harvey pharvey at peterharvey.org
Tue Nov 6 02:15:46 GMT 2007


Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 02:05:57PM -0800, Peter Harvey wrote:
>
>   
>> I have to wonder if using ICU instead of iconv would better support 
>> loss-less string handling within unixODBC? Would probably mean that some 
>> string handling code could be removed from __info.c and that strings 
>> would never have to be dumbed down due to a lack of feature support in 
>> iconv.
>>     
>
>   
>> I know that ICU is not best represented in C (as compared to C++ and 
>> Java) but may be a better fit than iconv?
>>     
>
> Hrm, what's the problem needing solving here?  AFAIK, ICU is primarily
> needed if you have to do canonicalization of Unicode strings; is that
> relevant to UnixODBC?
>
> ICU's a pretty heavy library to pull in if you don't really have use for it.
>
>   
Yes - agreed. I am not sure it is needed but let me throw out some 
potential reasons and see if they can (or even need) to be addressed via 
ICU etc. Here is a starter...

Dumbing Down

At the moment - some of the string processing occurs only after the 
string is dumbed down (to ascii) - allowing the use of standard C string 
processing. Is this lossless, given our use?  I suspect its lossless for 
ASCII stuff like the standard keywords but are there similar 
circumstances where we could loose characters?

--
Peter












More information about the unixODBC-dev mailing list