[Standards-JIG] UPDATED: JEP-0059 (Result Set Management)
stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Jul 19 19:21:03 UTC 2006
Ian Paterson wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>> Well, there's no real reason for <start/> then, is there? In
>> the first request don't specify <after/>, in all other
>> requests specify the unique ID (UID) of the last item.
> Yes I agree. :-)
> (I sometimes hold back from suggesting the full extent of a 'radical'
> proposal in the first post.)
Aw, don't hold back.
>> BTW, the problem of omitted items is not necessarily solved
>> by this. Consider what happens if the list is ordered:
> Yes, I *tried* to explain that disadvantage in one sentence in my last
>>> - *even if the above to errors do not occur, the complete
>>> result set returned would not necessarily reflect the
>>> result set as it existed at any one point in time
>> Dynamic search seems to be ugly no matter how you slice it.
> Yes, but the problem above is smaller than the ones presented by the
> existing system. <after/> is the best solution I've been able to think
So it seems to me, too. If I can't come up with anything better, I shall
update JEP-0059 accordingly.
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards