LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  May 2003

ZNG May 2003

Subject:

Re: SRW/SRU and Metasearch products

From:

Adam Dickmeiss <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Mon, 26 May 2003 14:27:19 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (93 lines)

On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 01:53:17PM +0100, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2003, Adam Dickmeiss wrote:
> > On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 11:02:10PM -0400, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
>
> > > I am opposed to multi-database stuff.  As I understand it, the content
> > > These sound like serious folks with specific requirements and a commitment
> > > to serious code.  Make them do real z39.50.
> > With SRW and HTTP keepalive the mechanics becomes equivalent.
>
> Could you write up a quick summary of how this works and any
> advantages/disadvantages?  I think it'd be really useful for the rest of
> us, and for any new implementers.
I'll try.

The Z39.50 model where one session is tied to one user has the drawback
that it is difficult to integrate with a Web Server (which has
a Z39.50 origin in it). It also represents a problem for the server,
since one socket will be open for every user out there.

To overcome the problem in building a Web-to-Z gateway it was much
easier to assign N sockets for each server where N was a semi-fixed
number and all users would share those sockets. A typical number of
users would be much higher than N. In this mode all Z39.50 sessions
are anonymous but the Z39.50 init user authentication model breaks down.
The socket may be shut down at any time by the server - due to
timeout/load, etc.. So the Z client has to be prepared to reestablich it
again. IIRC Ian Ibbotson used the term "Z39.50 persistent connections".
In this mode Z39.50 is used in pretty much the same way as a MySQL connection
to a MySQL db (or like most RDB*s I'd reckon).  The number of sockets N would
typically be equivalent to the number of threads/processes at the DB server.

When SRW is based on a HTTP/1.1 implementation, the HTTP operation
defaults to keep-alive (even though the client did not specify Keep-Alive).
The server will keep the socket alive for some time. Just like Z39.50.
The HTTP/1.1 client may stil specify how long it would like to the socket
to stay alive.

So to summarize the socket is typically tied to a database session
rather than a user session. The advantages are:
   better scalability (number of database sessions can be controlled)
   better Z39.50/SRW integration
   better Web server integration
The disadvanges are:
   authentication ala Z39.50 breaks down
   HTTP/1.1 is more difficult to implement than HTTP/1.0.

> > For SRW, we already have the notation of a database and is using
> > the HTTP path. That has two drawbacks:
> >   1) can only specify one resource.
> >   2) is bound to HTTP (SOAP can operate on a varity of protocols)
>
> The W in SRW is Web (or Web Service), after all, but it is true that SOAP
> isn't dependant on HTTP as the protocol.  On the other hand, the database
> is specified as a URI rather than an HTTP path, I thought ... if I had an
> FTP protocol SOAP server, I could have a database at
>   ftp://srw.o-r-g.org/pub/moo/
> in much the same way as I could have it at
>   http://srw.o-r-g.org:8080/l5r/
>
> (Though that does bring up a question of modeling in Zeerex, I admit)
> (SRF: Search/Retrieve over FTP? :))
>
> I can see that Matthew's music searching database, which IIRC can't match
> quickly enough to be able to respond before an http timeout, would benefit
> from SOAP over email. But are there any SOAP libs for protocols other than
> HTTP or possibly FTP?  Would it actually be useful to to decouple SRW from
> http?  I don't see the other protocols being used, either with SRW or
> really much else.

As long as the model is one DB, using the path is OK.

A "hot" transport for SOAP is Jabber . Even Jabber has a notion of a
resource. See http://www.jabber.org/about/techover.html
where I spot the following
  [node@]domain[/resource]
And that looks familiar.

-- Adam

> Rob
>
> --
>       ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
>     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
>   ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
> ,'---/::::::::::.    Twin Cathedrals:  telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
> ____/:::::::::::::.              WWW:  http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
> I L L U M I N A T I

--
Adam Dickmeiss  mailto:[log in to unmask]  http://www.indexdata.dk
Index Data      T: +45 33410100           Mob.: 212 212 66

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager