Re: [search-ws] multiple query types

["Dr R. Sanderson" <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk>]

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
>
>