[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [search-ws] multiple query types
I think we'e out-of-synch. I'm talking about the case where there is a defined (but optional) parameter, query-type. So every query has the parameter "query", whether it's CQL or other. So when you (Ralph) say " 'query' needs to be reserved for CQL." you're talking about the other case, no queryType parameter defined, different parameter names for different query types. But for the case where there is a queryType parameter, you specify a query type which might be anything, and you also (always) include the parameter 'query', whose content is a query of the type specified by the queryType parameter, not necessarily CQL. So the issue (that I had thought we were debating) is: if the queryType parameter is omitted, what is the default. Right? And the answer is either (a) default is always CQL; or (b) default is specified by the server. Right? ----- Original Message ----- From: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org> To: "Dr R. Sanderson" <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk>; "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov> Cc: <search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:48 PM Subject: RE: [search-ws] multiple query types I agree. 'query' needs to be reserved for CQL. But, if you take my suggested solution, the server can define in their Explain record that "q=bla" means use another query grammar. Ralph > -----Original Message----- > From: Dr R. Sanderson [mailto:azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk] > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:38 PM > To: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress > Cc: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [search-ws] multiple query types > > > > No, because we want to be able to always say query=bla and have it work > as expected. If you allow the server to rename the parameter, then you > always have to introspect using the explain information before you can > do anything. > > It just makes writing clients harder for no appreciable gain. > > R > > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: > > > But wouldn't (4) give the same backwards compatibility? > > > > And (as I think Ralph pointed out last time we discussed this) it > would make > > the protocol seem less cql-oriented. > > > > And pardon my typo, I said: > > "(4) Use (4) except there is no standard default, the default is > sever > > dependent and exposed via explain." > > when obviously I meant: > > "(4) Use (3) ......" > > > > --Ray > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dr R. Sanderson" <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk> > > To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov> > > Cc: <search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [search-ws] multiple query types > > > > > >>> (3) Use (1) with the additional stipulation that queryType is > optional, > > and > >>> it defaults to CQL. > >> > >> 3 please, backwards compatability is important. > >> > >> R > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > > https://www.oasis- > open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]