For your information.
The big issue appears to by lack of asynchronous communication. I'm not
particularly convinced by the arguments myself as a client doing
synchronous connections in different threads seems to me to be
functionally equivalent to a client doing asynchronous connections in a
single thread (and both have potential pitfalls).
In any case it would be possible to do a binding of SRW to SOAP over
SMTP, which would also allow asynchronous connections.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Noble
> Sent: 02 March 2004 16:03
> To: Matthew J. Dovey; Francisco Pinto
> Subject: Fw: More on SQI
> SQI v SRW
> game on!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Barker" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 3:53 PM
> Subject: More on SQI
> > Wilbert Kraan, of CETIS, has written an article about SQI,
> which you can
> > find here: http://www.cetis.ac.uk/content2/20040227011926 .
> It is based on
> > discussions he had with some of the prime motivators behind
> SQI and begins
> > to pick up on their reasons for choosing the route they did
> rather than
> > work with an existing protocol (SRW or similar).
> > Comments and discussion, even disagreements, are welcome.
> > Phil
> > --
> > Phil Barker Learning Technology Adviser
> > ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
> > Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University,
> > Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
> > Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327
> > Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/