The simplicity comes from being able to control the returned contents by
specifying a responseSchema. Not only does this simplify the interface, but
it also simplifies the Explain mechanism.
Maybe I have missed a point though. I don't understand why there is a
schema for SRW at all. We shouldn't be returning an XML record described by
a schema. We should be returning a searchResponse object encoded and
decoded by the SOAP toolkits who create a schema-less (well, SOAP schema)
XML record. I don't want to get a string as a response that I have to
parse. That's why we chose SOAP. Otherwise, we might as well make up our
own protocol and skip the SOAP overhead.
Ralph
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Dovey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:59 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: issues list
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 06 February 2002 11:55
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: issues list
> >
> > I don't see how you can kill responseSchema from SRU. The
> whole point
> of
> > SRU was the clients ability to specify a responseSchema
> whose contents
> > were
> > greater than an SRW response. If I want a button on the screen that
> says
> > "Next Five Records", then there better be the data in the response
> that I
> > can put behind that button. Remember, there is no processing of the
> > response, simply reformatting from XML to HTML.
>
> At a guess you'd need the query and base URL in the response and then
> use the XSLT count function to work out the startRecord for the next
> request.
>
> Reread my original proposal since I think you have missed a
> fundamental
> point.
>
> I was not arguing that SRU should return the SRW response but that we
> have an extended schema for SRU which includes SRW plus the additional
> information for this sort of application. Once we've defined this
> extended schema for SRU (lets call this RS-2) do will still need to
> offer the ability to extend this even further.
>
> For simplicity can't we just have RS-1 used in SRW and an
> extension RS-2
> used in SRU and leave it there?
>
> Matthew
>
|