Since my server does no smart caching, my client will be kind enough to use
the resultSetName when fetching more records from a result set.  I hope
other clients will be as kind.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 7:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: why do we even want the result set name?
>
>
> From: "Matthew Dovey" <[log in to unmask]>
> > As for why we need the server to return the result set,
> this was discussed
> > at the meeting and again via e-mail last week, .......
> But we've changed the assumptions.  At the meeting, the firm
> assumption was
> that results would be static in the case where a result set name is
> supplied.
>
> ....
>
> And another important assumption is (was) that the result set
> corresponds to
> the original query string....
>
> > However at this point unknown to us someone adds a new record .....
>
> What's the mechanism you envision to add a record? It doesn't
> fit the model
> as we've discussed so far.  Would you only be able to add a
> record that
> conforms to the original query? Or could someone "qualify"
> the result set
> (e.g. A OR b), in which case the result set no longer
> corresponds to the
> original query string.
>
>
> Let me ask, and please everyone think about this, is anyone
> planning to
> *use* the result set name feature in the initial testbed, and
> if not, would
> it be reasonable to mention it in the initial report as
> something we will
> study in detail and may (/probably-will) add in the next
> release, but leave
> it out as an actual parameter for now?
>
>
> --Ray
>