"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.)