I was a little concerned by your comment "If a user is going to use in a
follow up query, then it should be sensible shouldn't it?"
If by sensible, you just mean that it can be put in a URL without
a) requiring escaping
b) exceeding the 256 recommended maximum length for a URL
Then I agree with you
We may need to include some limits on result set ids (e.g. allowed
characters and max recommended length)
For a while I though "sensible" might mean human readable, which I don't
think appropriate here.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theo van Veen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 14 June 2002 09:43
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Betr.: Re: result set model for srw
> There is no reason to assume that SRU confuses things. I do
> not think people are going to type in queries as URL's
> (although I sometimes do). The only thing that is important
> for SRU is that we keep the parameters URL friendly so that
> we do not need an extra level of escape sequences and that we
> keep them short.
> >>> [log in to unmask] 14-06-02 10:14 >>>
> > > If we have (persistent) result set names, do we still need session
> > > ids?
> > >
> > > --Ray
> > One unanswered question to me (it might have been decided
> > already sorry): who invents result sets names? If the server
> > just generates them, is there any obligation for the name to
> > be sensible? If a user is going to use in a follow up query,
> > then it should be sensible shouldn't it?
> They are generated by the server. If this isn't clear in the
> current doc.s then it should be.
> Result set name is probably a misnomer - what this actually
> is, is a id for referencing the result set in order to
> maintain state. It isn't meant to be a nice easy name
> presented to the user! At the end of the day (although SRU
> used with thin clients and XSLT confuses the issue
> slightly) this is an on the wire protocol not a user
> interface definition!