Re: [regrep-query] Iteration Support for Queries v0.2

[Len Gallagher <lgallagher@nist.gov>]

At 04:36 PM 7/26/2002 -0400, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> > Issue #2: Should the specification require that the Query be submitted
> > separately from the iterations? This is logically cleaner, but doesn't
> > really avoid the ambiguities unless additional requirements are placed on
> > the Registry to implement transactional semantics or to hold large
> > "complete" result sets for indefinite time. The SQL notion of Declare
> > Cursor and Fetch from Cursor use this approach and have additional
> > INSENSITIVE and SCROLL options on DECLARE CURSOR that a client can use to
> > tell the database server whether certain ambiguities must be avoided during
> > subsequent Fetches. ODBC and JDBC also use this approach with a clear
> > separation between the Query, its result set (or sets), and cursor 
> operations.
>
>I do not follow the above issue. Does it get impacted given the resolution I
>proposed for Issue #1?
>If nt please clarify.


The only issue is whether one should have two separate facilities, as you 
suggest in your comments, or one facility that can be extended in an upward 
compatible manner to handle cursor extensions. I see pros and cons for each.

-- Len