Date:         Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:40:38 -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: maximumRecords
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 6:03 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: questions
>
> I hate to suggest it, but am going to anyway... what about a
> diagnostic as
> well as the records? As discussed there are fatal and non fatal
> conditions, and this strikes me as a good non fatal one.
>
> You asked for 100000 records, but I'm not insane, here's 50 and a
> diagnostic to say that 50 is my maximum records retreivable at once.

I don't have a problem with them asking me for 100000 records every time.
As long as I control the number that is actually returned, their number is
just a hint.  There is no difference in my code for either case; I'll always
go through the min() method that reduces their request to something
reasonable.

Ralph