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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  February 2002

ZNG February 2002

Subject:

Re: SRW test server up for playing with

From:

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:20:04 +1100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (48 lines)

On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 10:55:40AM -0000, Matthew Dovey wrote:
> The only change I have serious issue with (as you suspected) is the TTL
> type. I originally intended this to be a time/date stamp when the result
> set expired rather than a duration.

I had not read it that closely, my appologies. I had read the name
(time to live) saw that it was a string, and assumed "duration" from
the name. "Time to live" implies to me a duration (how long left) rather
than "expiry time" which to me implies a point in time when it dies.

I am not stressed either way, but I would use xsd:duration or xsd:dateTime
rather than string. May as well use the appropriate SOAP type for it.

> The problem with duration is when do
> you start measuring it from (the time the client sends the request, the
> time the server receives the request, the time the server sends the
> response, the time the client receives the response). With network and
> processing latency these four events will occur at different times. Have
> a date/time removes this ambiquity (we'll assume that all machines have
> decent mechanisms for keeping their clocks synchronised e.g. the NTP
> protocol). It would also allow us in the future to consider although
> transport mechanisms for SRW which have larger latencies, e.g. SOAP over
> SMTP.
>
> Matthew

I understand your arguments, but I think the assumption of clocks being
synchronized is too big in real life. I think of all those PC's out
there, including ones at people's homes etc. Then there are all the
problems of time zones etc (and the fact that software writers do
get it wrong at times).

I think time-to-live would be better as a duration, but where the value
is a hint. The server is allowed to keep the result set longer or shorter
as it deems appropriate. So clients should not rely on it. Knowing the
exact date/time (and then assuming clocks are synchronized) or duration
from "now" I suspect makes almost zero difference. The client still does
not know how long it will take for its request to get to the server again,
so while using a date/time reduces the inaccuracy, it does not eliminate
inaccuracy.

So duration has inaccuracy, date/time has smaller inaccuracy but relies
on clocks being synchronized.

Oh, more SOAP toolkits support date/time than duration by the way. <:-(

Alan

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