Mike Taylor wrote:
>>Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:48:45 +0000
>>From: Dr Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>>>1. Since POST does not have similar size limitations.. Update or
>>>other services will work (better).
>>Well, we do talk about this size limitiation. But has anyone
>>actually hit it in practice? Has anyone even demonstrated that
>>current servers fail to process queries > 1024 characters?
>If SRU don't support POST then we can forget about ever having an
>SRU-based update service. And if there isn't one, then implementors
>will roll their own instead of using the currently proposed SRW-like
>Update, and bang goes interoperability.
Not at all - now you invent a new reason to use SRU/POST, but clearly
the discussion last month on UPDATE shows that this was not planned to
be a part of SRU/SRW, but another, parallel protocol.
So let's not mix apples and pears in the SRU/POST discussion.
> _/|_ _______________________________________________________________
>/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
>)_v__/\ Orthogonality uber alles!
>Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
Marc Cromme, cand. polyt, Ph.D
Senior Developer, Project Manager
Index Data Aps
K°bmagergade 43, 2
1150 Copenhagen K.
tel: +45 3341 1000
fax: +45 3341 0101
INDEX DATA Means Business
for Open Source and Open Standards