Date:         Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:57:00 -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: multiple schemas
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

But (a) is not amenable to explain.  It says that the behavior is
unpredictable, learn to like it.  I don't.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 10:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: multiple schemas
>
>
> "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
>
> > I'm unhappy with the opinion that not specifying a schema
> might result in
> > records from multiple schemas being returned.  Servers
> should be expected to
> > specify their default schema (through explain) and return
> all records in
> > that schema when an explicit schema has not been specified.
>
> What are the semantics of omitting the schema name in a
> request? Is it:
>
> (a) give me each record in whatever schema is available (or
> the best, if there
> is more than one), or;
> (b) I don't know what's the default schema but give me all
> records in that
> schema; or
> (c) I know what your default schema is; I'm omitting it
> because I'm lazy. But I
> want all the records in that schema.
>
> If it's (c) then you're right.  (b) doesn't make sense -- it
> assumes that the
> client is prepared for multiple schemas so why limit it to
> one.  If it's (a)
> then I dissagree.
>
> --Ray
>