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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  October 2003

ZNG October 2003

Subject:

Re: Proposal for echoed unknown request parameters

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:12:11 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (82 lines)

I can live with this, although I do not see what has been gained with
respect to what we had in version 1.0. What should happen when "unknown"
parameters are not prefixed wit x- ?
The solution we had in version 1.0 was perfect in different aspects. It
served debugging without users being bothered by error messages. It
served a nice way to go to a new version without being backwards
incompatible: when we introduce in version 1.2 a new parameter, version
1.1 servers just echo it as unknown parameter. The effect of having the
x- prefix seems to be that the server knows it is meant to be echoed.
But not having to be aware of the x- prefix lowers the barrier for
implementation: when an implementor makes a mistake in version 1.0 he
sees immediately that he used a wrong parameter.
I would rather expect the x- prefix as a sign to not-echo-the-parameter
 because it is considered a non-standard local parameter.
The echoing being mandatory is another thing. Clients will be
appreciated more when they can deal with al kinds of server behaviour.
Servers will be appreciated when they offer a better basis for all kinds
of functionality. Even when we say that servers MUST echo these
parameters cllients should be capable of dealing with servers that do
not echo. But this will always result in less functionality (otherwise
it was meaningless to use the extra parameters).

But once again, I can live with this solution, but I was happier with
the 1.0 solution.

Theo

>>> [log in to unmask] 10/11 5:58  >>>
OK, just to have something to hit against, I'll propose the following
solution and let you all shoot it down...

We have a new schema http://www.loc.gov/srw/echoedParameters which
looks
like the following

<x:echo xmlns:x="http://www.loc.gov/srw/echoedParameters">
  <parameter>
          <parameterName>...</parameterName>
        <parameterValue>...</parameterValue>
  </parameter>
  <parameter>
          <parameterName>...</parameterName>
        <parameterValue>...</parameterValue>
  </parameter>
</x:echo>


In SRW

This schema can be used in the extraRequestData, if so the server MUST
return the structure as is in the extraResponseData

In SRU

The SRU URL can contain parameters of the form x-..., the server MUST
return these in an x:echo structure in the extraResponseData e.g.

http://myserver.com/sru?version=1.1&operation=search&query=smith&x-parm1

=something&x-parm2=somethingelse

<x:echo xmlns:x="http://www.loc.gov/srw/echoedParameters">
  <parameter>
          <parameterName>x-parm1</parameterName>
        <parameterValue>something</parameterValue>
  </parameter>
  <parameter>
          <parameterName>x-parm2</parameterName>
        <parameterValue>somethingelse</parameterValue>
  </parameter>
</x:echo>


Theo - are you happy with that?

Mike, Rob and Ralph, note that in this proposal x-... parameters in
SRU
MUST be echoed back in extraResponseData not ignored as you've
suggested.

Matthew

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