On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:45:16AM +0000, Mike Taylor wrote:
> Hi People,
> I'd like to announce the first public draft of a Bath Profile for
> SRW. It's available at
> Comments welcome.
If I understand things, the CQL Bath profile says use the CQL DC profile
where appropriate. But the DC profile says to use the new attribute
architecture for attribute bindings and the Bath 2.0 profile does not.
Would it be better to include the missing index names in Bath as well
as they may have different attribute bindings in practice? (Bath mandates
bindings where DC does not mandate Bath compatible bindings.)
I also note that for the CQL parser to generate valid Bath queries,
it has to default all the non-specified attribute type values.
Eg: if no truncation was specified, 'do not truncate' (5,100)
must be included for it it be a conformant Bath query. Is this
worth noting in the Bath profile?
All up though a good step forward.