> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 13 June 2002 16:07
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: result set model for srw
> > > I can see the benefit in being stateless (SOAP and URLs
> are sort of
> > > meant to be stateless after all). If state is important, then I
> > > think it needs to be explicit. For example, allow a response to
> > > include a session id (with a time to live value).
> Following requests
> > > are allowed to include that session id.
> > If we have (persistent) result set names, do we still need session
> > ids?
> Yes. Otherwise you could subvert other users' result sets as
> you don't know who created it.
Not so. In SRW (unlike Z39.50) the result set name is really a result
set identifier generated by the server rather than requested by the
client. So in SRW the result set name effectively acts as a session id.
This result set name only has limited life. One receipt of a second SRW
request to get the next 10 records, the server is perfectly at liberty
to respond with a new result set name (at an abstraction level this name
would be referencing the same result set) i.e. this is just a mechanism
to maintain state between SRW requests.