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  November 2001

ZNG November 2001

Subject:

SRW - I'm Still Dreaming!

From:

"LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:21:17 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (84 lines)

I see two cases:
1) Maximum use of SOAP RPC toolkit.  This means a fixed, well-known list of
parameters and the return of a structured object.
2) Intermediate use of SOAP RPC toolkit.  Still a fixed, well-known list of
parameters, but with the return of a String which contains an XML document
to be parsed by the client.  The contents of the XML document are controlled
by the responseSchema specified in the request parameters.  My understanding
of this requirement is that the intended parser of the response is an XSL
stylesheet.  Smart clients would be encouraged to follow case #1.

Actually, Theo proposes the third case:
3) Minimal use of the SOAP RPC toolkit.  A single String parameter is sent
which contains an XML document for the request with parameters as items in
the document.  The server will have to parse the request, identify the items
it recognizes and issue diagnostics for unrecognized items.  The response
will be as in case #2.

Case #1 is satisfied by an RPC call to the searchRetrieve method with the
four parameters: query, startRecord, maximumRecords and recordSchema.  The
response is an object of type searchRetrieveResponse.

Case #2 is satisfied by an RPC call to the searchRetrieve method with the
five parameters: query, startRecord, maximumRecords, responseSchema and
recordSchema.  The response is an object of type String which contains an
XML record whose schema was specified by the responseSchema in the request.

Case #3 is satisfied by an RPC call to the searchRetrieve method with the
single String parameter: request.  That parameter contains an XML document.
The response is an object of type String which contains an XML record whose
schema was specified by the responseSchema in the request.  (I suspect that
this case doesn't actually exist, but is covered in the variant described
below.)


There is another dimension to these three cases.  All of them should be
possible using a constructed URL and not using SOAP at all.  The request
parameters would be name=value pairs in the URL.  The response would be the
same XML document returned for cases 2 and 3.  I suspect that case #1
disappears or becomes case #2.


So, we now have six cases.  Let's name them 1R (case #1, with RPC), 1U (case
#1 with URL's), 2R, 2U, 3R and 3U.

1R) I will support case 1R in my SRW implementation.

1U) Case 1U doesn't exist.  Since we aren't using SOAP, we can't return an
object.  All we can return is a document.  So, case 1U becomes case 2U.

2R) I will support case 2R; I do now.  But, I'm not sure how valuable it is.
Since the use of SOAP presupposes the use of a smart client, how much value
do we expect to get from the additional data that might come back in a rich
responseSchema?

2U) I will support case 2U; I do now.  My IE browser does a lovely job of
displaying the XML document returned.  The problem is the specification of
stylesheets.  If the server specifies the stylesheet, then a smart client
can ignore the specification and do whatever it wants with the returned
document.  But what if the user of a dumb client wants to use a stylesheet
other than the one that the server provides?  Should we allow the URL to
specify a stylesheet in the request so that the server can echo it and the
browser use it?  Between the responseSchema parameter and the stylesheet
parameter, we've chewed up a lot of our URL.  It would be nicer if we had an
Init service that would allow the creation of a cookie that carried that
information for all the transactions.  I guess my vote, for now, would have
to be in favor of allowing the specification of a stylesheet in the URL.

3R) I don't believe this case actually exists.  What would be the point if
we are using a smart client?

3U) This is indistinguishable from 2U, if you are willing to ignore
unrecognized parameters.  If we don't ignore them (and my strong
recommendation is that we do NOT ignore them) then we'll need a new
diagnostic so that we can report back the unrecognized parameter.

Summary (finally!)
There are two real cases: 1R and 2U and maybe 2R and 3U.  1R and 2R are
straightforward RPC specifications.  2U is easy to do and 3U isn't much
harder.

So, can we agree to do them all or should we focus on 1R and 2U?

Ralph

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