LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  December 2004

ZNG December 2004

Subject:

Re: SRU using POST (Was: Adlib Base profile)

From:

Dr Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:48:45 +0000

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (93 lines)

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Adam Dickmeiss wrote:
> Dr Robert Sanderson wrote:
>> a) Allow SRU via POST, making three possibilities for hardcore server
>>    developers
>> Then I think that (a) is the better option, because the people who are
>> most affected are the people who are most likely to just implement it
>> anyway rather than abandoning ship.

> thank you for responding.. I pretty much agree. It will be more honest
> to say.
>  c) SRU it is. GET is mandatory. POST is optional. SRW / SOAP depricated.

I don't think that deprecating SRW is a good option.  There's just no
advantage to doing so, and see below.

> The important part is that people did not implement SRW servers already,
> so we're in a stage where SRU GET is the only "safe" option.

Well, most of us -have-, they're just much harder to write braindead
clients for, and for the most part we have been interested in servers not
clients.


>>> The consequence is that clients that just works are bound to be SRU GET,
>>> or try to be clever and configure (using a poll like mechaism)..
>> Perhaps we should just require SRU GET?
> Yep. It's the only sensible thing to do. Thinking about it, the SRW
> protocol has gradually moved away from XML. XCQL gone. SOAP not being
> supported by some servers (even IIRC it was required).

I don't think that's the protocol moving away from XML, or SOAP. It was
more a design flaw in the 1.0 spec.

XCQL's initial raison d'etre was to avoid writing CQL parsers, as everyone
must have access to an XML parser anyway.  If you have an XML parser you
can generate the same tree from XCQL with it as from CQL with a CQL
parser.

However the cost of constructing that tree in a client is much much
greater than constructing the string equivalent.  It shifted the burden
from the server (which already has the burden of implementation) to the
client (which doesn't).   The server already had to understand CQL, so it
just complicated everything to also allow XCQL in the request.

However we retained it in the response as it's easy to manipulate with
XSLT (or other tools) in a client.  There it's useful, it shifts the
burden of parsing the CQL first to the server, and then to the underlying
tools used by the client.


> SRU should be considered _one_ protocol. When explain is returend it
> should just state "I can handle POST" or "I cannot handle POST" (forgive
> me if that's already been suggested). This will make it easy for clients
> to use POST if that is desired, but do GET explain in the _first_ place.

This is where I start to really disagree.

While there may not be many SRW implementations in use today, that's not
to say that SOAP is bad, or that there never will be any.  The number of
publically available, non trivial/non experimental web services in any
field today is still not very high.  Database access is, IMO, the prime
candidate for expansion (cf Google, Amazon) and SRW is the single real
contender in that field.


> 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?


> We can keep SRW+SOAP . But it's going to die. If we keep it, it will be
> pure marketing.. I'm certainly going to change "my" clients to use SRU
> instead of SRW.

That's certainly a possibility.  However, the entry into the 'marketplace'
of a few heavy hitters on the SOAP front and I think that could very very
easily turn around.

Netcraft hasn't confirmed it yet :)

Rob


       ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
   ,'--/::(@)::.      Dept. of Computer Science, Room 805
,'---/::::::::::.    University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::.  L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
I L L U M I N A T I

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager