Date:         Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:46:54 -0400
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: result set model for srw
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

1) Immutable means unchangeable.

2) Yes.

3) If it is not a legally binding contract, then it is only a hint.  The
server can kill it whenever it wants.  If the server runs out of resources,
something has to go.  If the server crashes, something will probably go.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 10:11 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: result set model for srw
>
>
> Ralph --
> (1) what does "immutable" mean?
> (2) do you still feel that the result set id should be
> assigned by the server?
> (3) is the ttl just a "hint" or is it stronger than that?  I
> infered from one of
> Matthew's messages that he thinks that a server is morally
> bound to keep the
> result set available for at least approximately the ttl
> period (and of course
> morally bound doesn't mean legally bound).
>
> --Ray
>
> "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
>
> > I have no problem with saying that a result set name must
> always be returned
> > and must be immutable (that's a Java word!)  It doesn't need to be
> > persistent and the server will give a hint as to how long
> it will remain.  I
> > think we must be compliant with the current z39.50 model
> which says that a
> > result set is a surrogate for an ordered set of records.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
>