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  March 2010

ZNG March 2010

Subject:

Re: resultSetTTL and resultSetIdleTime

From:

John Harrison <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:28:46 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (129 lines)

First, Cheshire3's SRU server (written by Rob Sanderson) implements both
resultSetTTL and resultSetIdleTime.

resultSetTTL as a request parameter seems ambiguously and possibly
overloaded. resultSetTTL primarily ask that the server maintain the
resultSet for at least this long (which it may or may not do), but could
there also be an expectation (on the part of the client) that the server
_will_ expire the resultSet after this time?

Actually given the standard definition of resultSetIdleTime:
"The number of seconds after which the created result set will be
deleted. The result set may also become unavailable before this."
resultSetTTL would be a more accurate name for this response parameter.

A more accurate definition of resultSetIdleTime should read something
more like:
"The number of seconds for which a result set must remain idle (i.e. not
retrieved), before it will be deleted."

In summary, I'd like to see both parameters remain, and resultSetTTL
added as a response parameter in order to express:
"The number of seconds after which the created result set will be
deleted, regardless of any activity in the meantime."

This should not preclude both parameters being returned in a response to
mean:
"resultSetTTL is the number of seconds after which the created result
set will be deleted, however if it is idle for resultSetIdleTime
seconds, it will be deleted earlier."

Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth.

John


On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 15:55 +0000, Mike Taylor wrote:
> On 11 March 2010 14:43, LeVan,Ralph <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I disagree.  The client is not saying that they want the result set to actually expire in 30 seconds, they are saying that they would like the idle timeout to be set to 30 seconds.  (lol, at least that's the way I've always treated it in my code!)
> 
> If that's so, then the request parameter is Just Plain Misnamed, and
> that should be fixed.
> 
> But that's not what the specification says.
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/specs/search-retrieve.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > So, I think the semantics are pretty much the same.  Ray seems to want to change the name of the client parameter.  Unless servers support both the old and new names, this will inevitably break some clients.  Personally, I have no problem, as a server supplier, in being generous in what I accept and strict in what I produce, but I understand that others would prefer not to have the standard larded up with the baggage of our old mistakes.
> >
> > I don't care how this ends up being corrected in the standard: I'll support the old way and the new way as long as I can remember why the old code is in my server.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >> On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 5:33 AM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: resultSetTTL and resultSetIdleTime
> >>
> >> You can't just rename one of these -- they have different semantics.
> >> One is total time to live,  the other is how often it needs pinging in
> >> order to live forever.  If you change one of the names, you need to
> >> change the semantics, too.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10 March 2010 20:33, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > The OASIS Search Web Services TC solicits feedback from SRU
> >> implementors on
> >> > the following issue.
> >> >
> >> > SRU defines the request parameter resultSetTTL and response element
> >> > resultSetIdleTime.
> >> >
> >> > These are described as follows:
> >> >
> >> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > The client may request, via parameter resultSetTTL, that the server maintain
> >> > the result set to be created for a specified period of time (in seconds).
> >> > The server may choose not to fulfill this request, and may respond with a
> >> > different value, via the response element resultSetIdleTime.
> >> >
> >> > The response element <resultSetIdleTime> is a good-faith estimate by the
> >> > server of the idle time, in seconds. That is, the server projects (but does
> >> > not guarantee) that the result set will remain available and unchanged (both
> >> > in content and order) until there is a period of inactivity exceeding this
> >> > idle time. The idle time must be a positive integer, and should not be so
> >> > small that a client cannot realistically reference the result set again. If
> >> > the server does not intend that the result set be referenced, it should omit
> >> > the result set identifier in the response.
> >> >
> >> > <resultSetIdleTime> is independent (from a protocol point of view) of
> >> > resultSetTTL. It may be less-than, equal-to, or greater-than resultSetTTL,
> >> > and may be supplied or omitted regardless of whether resultSetTTL is
> >> > supplied or omitted.
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The TC would like if possible to give these both the same name, that is,
> >> > either rename the request parameter resultSetIdleTime or rename the
> >> response
> >> > element resultSetTTL. We're not sure if anyone has implemented either of
> >> > these, and if not then we could rename one or the other without breaking
> >> > any existing implementations. If there are existing implementations of one
> >> > but not the other, then we could rename the latter. If there are existing
> >> > implementations of both of these, we will drop the idea altogether.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > So we would like to hear from anyone who has implemented either or both of
> >> > resultSetTTL or resultSetIdleTime.
> >> >
> >> > --Ray
> >
> >
-- 
              '.    ,'.         John Harrison
             '  `  '  '         University of Liverpool
 c h e s h i r e  |  3          e: [log in to unmask]
                  v             w: www.cheshire3.org
              `-..;.'           t: 0151 7954271
                ..,     (c)     

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