Date:         Tue, 27 May 2003 15:07:39 +0200
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Adam Dickmeiss <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: SRW/SRU and Metasearch products
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 08:49:08AM -0400, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
[snip]

> By the way, we decided long ago that holding connections open was more
> expensive than making and breaking them.  So, our clients negotiate a
> reconnect capability and we drop the connection after every response.  The
> client sends a sessionID with the request that comes over the next connect.
I question that decision;)

Having many connections open is expensive. However, establishing a TCP/IP
connection in itself is expensive too. Therefore busy sites often
tunnel everything thought a limited number busy of sockets, say 20.

> Ralph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sebastian Hammer [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 7:16 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: SRW/SRU and Metasearch products
> >
> >
> > At 23:02 24-05-2003 -0400, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> >
> > >These sound like serious folks with specific requirements
> > and a commitment
> > >to serious code.  Make them do real z39.50.
> >
> > I have total sympathy for this view, but my sense is that if
> > we can't do
> > better than that, we (ie. the ZiNG/ZIG community) might as
> > well just tell
> > the commercial content providers to go roll their own web
> > service. That's a
> > totally valid position, but it seems to me that it begs a more
> > philosophical discussion about exactly who we hope will take
> > up the SRW
> > protocol, if not those groups. We *were* looking for a
> > broader audience
> > with SRW, right?
> >
> > The funny thing about SOAP and its integration into modern development
> > environments is that it makes it easy as pie to develop customised
> > protocols for just about anything, and people seem to do so.
> > What I see as
> > the major departure of the "metasearchers" is that they have
> > no angst about
> > dealing with multiple protocols -- they have business models
> > and suport
> > frameworks in place for handling it, and the users are paying
> > for the party
> > but they're also, arguably, getting more interoperability and
> > functionality
> > than we have been able to deliver with Z39.50.
> >
> > In that context, the business case for implementing SRW (much
> > less Z39.50)
> > is much weaker than it might have been 10 years ago, when
> > network protocols
> > were black magic and metasearchers might have been
> > technically feasible,
> > but they weren't practical business propositions. And it
> > makes sense to me
> > to at least seek a dialogue with these folks, and see if we
> > can meet them
> > halfway.
> >
> > --Sebastian
> > --
> > Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/>
> > Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101
> >

--
Adam Dickmeiss  mailto:[log in to unmask]  http://www.indexdata.dk
Index Data      T: +45 33410100           Mob.: 212 212 66