> -----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.

Matthew