RE: New system CCSID recommendation

["Urbanek, Marty" <Marty_Urbanek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

I didn't really press for an answer to why it is the default. I really don't
fault IBM for that. I think it is just a matter of evolution. If you look at
the many years that OS/400 has been defaulting to 65535 (for US machines
anyway) compared to the time that these kinds of things (java, unicode,
JDBC/ODBC) have been an issue in the OS/400 application world, I just figure
it's either:

1 - they haven't got around to it yet and/or not enough customer pain
2 - it would hurt more people than it would help
3 - they figure the people working on those kinds of things would figure it
out

Heck, for all I know there may be a whole section in the planning doc that
tells you to consider this, but I've not read it (at least recently). As I
understand it, the rest of the world (isn't there something outside the US?)
doesn't default to 65535, so to those that have always had to face character
conversion issues this is nothing new.

Plus, there are other places you can change the CCSID (other than QCCSID) so
maybe they figure it is up to us dumb users to determine the best approach
for whatever we are trying to do.

-Marty

------------------------------

date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:22:39 -0500
from: "Chuck Lewis" <clewis@xxxxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: New system CCSID recommendation

Marty,

That is INCREDIBLE ! So WHY THE HECK are they defaulting it to that ? They
didn't have an answer ?

Our new 810 (installed in September 2003) is set to 65535.
And so is the old 620...

Chuck