Print

Print


> > If the server returns the old resultset name then the set has been
> > rewritten.
> But do we want to allow result sets to be re-written? You could argue  that
> violates the result set model.  Of course real Z39.50 allows it, but gets
> around the model issue by saying that the old result set is deleted and a new
> one by the same name is created. Maybe it's simpler just to say "create a new
> result set". Leave unanswered the question of whether the old one stays
> around.

Can't we use the same 'model' in SRW to allow it?  Then we can have all
three possibilities. (And just map z39.50 resultsets to SRW resultsets)

For other messages:
  The combining resultset method is good :)
  And Ray has it right about what I meant for failed sorts.

Rob

--
      ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Twin Cathedrals:  telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::.              WWW:  http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I