Re: [search-ws] Scan: another approach

[Farrukh Najmi <farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com>]

Encoding compound information in queryOption values (e.g. 
"&positional=sru.startRecord:1;sru.maximumRecords:10")
is not desirable because it adds complexity. Simplicity is the cardinal 
rule IMHO in our search spec.

However it is OK to use dot notation in queryOption names (e.g. 
"&positional.startRecord=1&position.maximumRecords=10")

With that idea your complete example could look like:

<http://myserver.com/sru?sru.scan.query=dc.author%20any%20smith&positional.startRecord=1&position.maximumRecords=10>


Above maintains your idea without sacrificing simplicity.

That said what I do not get is why we don't just add a queryType 
queryOption so that your example further refined looks like:

<http://myserver.com/sru?queryType=sru.scan&query=dc.author%20any%20smith&positional.startRecord=1&position.maximumRecords=10>


Thoughts?

Matthew J. Dovey wrote:
> Mmmm, interesting - it also got me thinking. Essentially the information
> we send on the request falls into three categories:
>
> The query
> Some positional information (startRecord, MaxRecords)
> Some response formatting instructions (recordFormat, sort)
>
> Can everything we send in a request be categorised as above?
>
> If so, we could simplify our request into three parameters each
> accepting a value which is in someway extensible.
>
> So our requests may look something like:
>
> http://myserver.com/sru?query=sru.CQL:dc.author=smith&positional=[sru.st
> artRecord:1;sru.maximumRecords:10;myextension.stepping:2]&formatting=[sr
> u.recordFormat=MODS;sru.sort=dc.author]
>
> http://myserver.com/sru/query=sru.SCAN:dc.author%20any%20smith&positiona
> l=[sru.startRecord:1;sru.maximumRecords:10]
>
>   


-- 
Regards,
Farrukh Najmi

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com