Print

Print


> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:41:07 +0100
> From: "Matthew J. Dovey" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>>> In the request, I was thinking of having as XML structure such as:
>> [...]
>>
>> And in SRU, where you can't have structure in the request?
>>
>> Guess it's lucky we didn't deprecate SRW  ;)
>
> Ah good point.
>
> I think we should shelve this at this point until it becomes a real
> requirement.

I agree.

However --

> This maybe an example where ultimately SRU and SRW may have to part
> company - i.e. where this is real need for structure in the request.
> Arguably if the requirement is complex enough to require structure
> in the request it is probably too complex for SRU which is intended
> to have a low barrier of implementation.

I have problems with that idea.  Imagine someone who's built up an SRU
client, been happily using it for several years, then wants to add the
ability to request DC wrapped in METS.  I think it would be terribly
hard on that person to say that they have to start over with a
completely different protocol.

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "When you are young, you enjoy a sustained illusion that sooner
         or later something marvelous is going to happen [...]  But it
         isn't like that at all.  But if it isn't, where did the idea
         come from?" -- Brian Aldiss, _Helliconia Summer_