Sounds convincing to me.
> Envelope-to: [log in to unmask]
> Delivery-date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:17:52 +0100
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
> X-MS-Has-Attach:
> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
> Thread-Topic: Operation not supported?
> Thread-Index: AcP+np0xFKRx/RNbR8GtDReoVxntUAAT/hSA
> Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:15:20 -0000
> Reply-To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sender: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
> From: "Matthew J. Dovey" <[log in to unmask]>
> Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0
> tests=BAYES_10,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT
> version=2.55
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)
>
> In SRW, we currently have the response/request messages paired in the
> WSDL. i.e. only the scanResponse is a valid response to a scanRequest
> (ditto for searchRetrieve and explain). We could modify the WSDL to
> allow any response to be sent in response to any request, but I'm loath
> to lose this additional syntactical validation.
>
> So in SRW, Adam's server is the correct behaviour.
>
> I can't see any particular reason why SRU and SRW should differ in
> behaviour here.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf Of Adam Dickmeiss
> > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 8:32 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Operation not supported?
> >
> > LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> >
> > >I sent Theo's server an SRU scan request. I got back a
> > >searchRetrieveResponse with a diagnostic explaining that
> > scan was not a
> > >supported operation.
> > >
> > >Is that the right way to respond?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I just checked my server. It returns a scanResponse with the same
> > diagnostic. Possibly an explainResponse would be more proper.
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> > >Thanks!
> > >
> > >Ralph
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
|