Date:         Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:36:54 +0100
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: several subjects
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: cc: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

> > 4. Sorting existing resultsets is OK for me. Does the server return a
> > new resultsetid after sorting, keeping the previous resulset available
> > under is old name?
> Same question I had. There are three possibilities: (1) new set, discard
> old; (2) new set, keep old; (3) no new set (re-write old set).  Should
> the protocol specify this behavior or leave it to the server?

Does this need to be set out in the protocol?

If the server returns the old resultset name then the set has been
rewritten.

If the server returns a new resultset name then it is a new set.
As TTL is a hint, then there's no correct answer as to whether the server
should discard the old resultset or not. It can do either perfectly
validly.


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