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.

Matthew

> -----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/
> 
>