> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:55:02 +0100
> From: Dr Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
>>> I disagree. The amount of complexity in Z39.50 for searching
>>> multiple databases at once was a serious impediment to
>>> implementation, and the same will apply to SRW.
>>
>> What extra complexity? Extend the database-name syntax to allow
>> lists, add a what-database-the-record-is-from element to the result
>> record, bam, you're done.
>
> Explain?
Explain the virtual union DB. Say nothing about the sub-DBs. If you
want to know about them, you can ask them for _their_ explain records;
but of course you _don't_ want to know about them: avoiding such
details is precisely why you're searching the union in the first place.
> Scan?
Same.
> Databases that don't have common record schemas?
Don't Do That, Then.
> Databases without common indexes?
Don't Do That, Then.
> Databases without common (insert favourite SRW functionality here) ?
Don't Do That, Then.
etc.
_/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ ``SAY IT WITH CHEESE'' -- sign outside Dimock, South Dakota.
--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/
