The "current proposal" is to stick extra information as a string in a new
field in the response.  The reason it isn't explainable is that it is
open-ended.  There is no limit to the amount of junk that can be stuck into
it.

Oh, I guess it can be explained.  Provide a schema or list of schemas for
the extra info.

I don't know why I'm so offended by the idea.  Part of it is resistance to
creeping featurism.  But it is exactly analogous to the otherInfo that we've
been using for years now.

Keep beating at me and maybe I'll concede.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 10:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: explain
>
>
> "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
>
> > The problem with the current proposal is that it isn't
> amenable to Explain.
> > You are using out-of-band agreements for your
> extensibility.  You can't
> > Explain out-of-band.  If you want clients to know what
> kinds of information
> > you can return in a response, then you'd best publicize
> that in the list of
> > responseSchemas that you support.
>
> I've lost track of the flow and I'm not sure what this
> responds to, in other
> words, what is the "current proposal" that "isn't ameable to Explain"?
>
> But I don't see a problem with Explain. We decided that
> Explain is just another
> Record Schema, not a response schema (a critical
> distinction). And we also
> decided that when a client wants the Explain record, it will
> omit the query in
> the request.
>
> --Ray
>