[ZOOM] Responses to Qns

Robert Sanderson azaroth at liverpool.ac.uk
Tue Jul 16 17:56:21 CEST 2002


> > Err, there really wasn't anything ZOOMish talked about to report.  I
> > mentioned half heartedly the idea of having a ZOOM/SRW binding, but
> > Matthew pointed out that you can't execute functions on objects
> > returned from a web service.

> Well, first of all, this was supposed to be a ZiNG meeting, not an SRW
> meeting!  You'll recall from the MA's own ZiNG page at

There wasn't really anything to talk about for ZOOM and ZeeRex as I was 
the only person there with any link to either.

(BTW, wrong list I know but, we decided that the Explain function for 
SRW should be based on ZeeRex but should be a different schema, for 
various reasons)


> > > I think we're just talking about one option -- a single concession
> > > to server brokenness -- that means "Watch it!  This server will

> > My thought is that if it's not an X-, does that mean that everyone
> > needs to support it?  This isn't as simple a case as just copying
> > the elementset across on to the result set as mine, it requires some
> > actual processing which seems to almost certainly include at least 6
> > network transactions:
> I have to admit that I don't really follow this argument.

> What's propose is a single option which can be used to tell the ZOOM
> client library "don't use result-set names other than 'default' on
> this connection".  Now _one_ of reasons you might want this is because
> the connection is to a server which, whatever it might have told you
> at negotiation time, doesn't support multiple (named) result sets.

Ahhh! I misunderstood and thought it was directly associated with the 
broken Voyager handling of sort.  An option that says 'always reuse result 
set name' is fine.

> Does anyone other than Rob like this idea?  :-)

I retract the idea now that I understand the way that the option works.
I thought that the library had to determine it or not.

> BTW., looking again at that page, I notice that it's pretty feeble: it
> has no link to the Tcl binding specification, nor any information
> about the Cheshire implementation.  That's _very_ out of date, isn't
> it?

Yes.

> If you can send me a link to the binding documentation (there is some,
> right?) and to downloadable source, I'll update the binding
> documentation.

I'll have a look for it and let you know.

Rob

-- 
      ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson (azaroth at liverpool.ac.uk)
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Twin Cathedrals:  telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::.              WWW:  http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I





More information about the ZOOM mailing list