FW: SPML 2.0

["Hu, James" <james.hu@hp.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Bohren, Jeff [mailto:Jeff_Bohren@BMC.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:55 AM
To: Hu, James
Subject: RE: SPML 2.0

James,

I apologize for just now getting to this. Could you post this to the PS TC list as an issue we should discuss at the next meeting?

Jeff Bohren



-----Original Message-----
From: Hu, James [mailto:james.hu@hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:20 PM
To: Bohren, Jeff
Subject: FW: SPML 2.0
Importance: High


Hi Jeff,

   Do you have answer to the following?

Thanks,
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Ganesan, Chandru
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:27 PM
To:  Hu, James
Subject: SPML 2.0


-       It is not mandatory to support Iterate operation. Standards has
created ambiguity in search capability support declaration:

Answer can be Yes and No based on SPML 2.0 specs.

As per specs:

Yes
====
"A provider that wishes to never to queue search results may return every matching object (up to the provider's limit and up to any limit specified by the requestor) in the search response.  Such a provider would never return an iterator, and would not need to support the iterate operation"

NO
===
"A provider that supports the search and iterate operations for a target SHOULD declare that the target supports the Search Capability. A provider that does not support both search and iterate MUST NOT declare that the target supports the Search Capability"


 Can we claim SPML 2.0 compliance if we claim the support for search capability, but not iterate operation?


thanks
Chandru Ganesan