 |
 |
Correct. Ralph > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 4:01 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: resultSetId parameter in request > > > "LeVan,Ralph" wrote: > > > I disagree with Ray's claim about case #2. But, I do > consider putting the > > resultSetID as the only entry in the query to be a hack to > eliminate a > > parameter. If anyone else thought that just adding a > resultSetID to the > > request was a good idea, then I think we should seriously > consider it. > > I doubt anyone will object -- the reason there isn't an > explicit parameter no > longer applies. I'll add it to the service definition and if > someone doesn't > want it they'll need to speak up. > > But we need to be sure we agree how this parameter is to be > used: If it's > supplied, then the query string shouldn't be supplied. I.e. > it is explicitly a > request for records from an existing result set, not a > request to execute a > query. Right? (And it's not an attempt to name the result > set. It has to be > a result set id that has been previously supplied by the server.) > > --Ray >