For the less-important features our principle has been: "if you want to know
if something is supported, try it, if it isn't you'll get a diagnostic".
Why wouldn't that apply here? Isn't that as easy as (and less expensive
than) doing it the Explain way?
----- Original Message -----
From: "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: Explain and Scan Backwards
> From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Dr R. Sanderson
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Mike Taylor wrote:
> > LeVan,Ralph writes:
> > > How would I construct an Explain record to indicate that my
> > > does not support scanning backwards?
> > You can't.
> > (Isn't it nice to have a simple, straightforward answer for once?
> Not to make a habit of it, but I agree with Mike :)
Doesn't this seem like a "bad" thing? I've got scan interfaces using
default values that result in diagnostics. If there was some sort of
indication that resultPositions greater than 1 were illegal, then I
wouldn't see those errors.
How about a hack? Got a suggestion for a benign place to stick that?