Re: Proposal: make init optional

> Sorry but I just can't go along with Bob's logic flow here. Let's agree that
> doing an Init is not always useful, and can sometimes be a nuisance.  That's one
> of the primary reasons that we invented encapsulation! To now argue that
> encapsulation is too hard so let's make Init optional seems counterproductive to
> me.
> 
> Encapsulation in it's full generality may be hard but you could implement just
> enough of encapsulation to cover this Init problem, and certainly that would be
> easier than all the problems associated with the proposed change to make Init
> optional, wouldn't it?

I was proposing this in the mode of making z39.50 more internet-like
and fast implemented; and I keep hearing popping up the need
for a search/retrieval in one round trip.

  I am totally willing to drop it; and leave the idea hanging around for when
this issue next arises.  Yes - encapsulation does everything; but it would
always be a non-trivial addon to a working implementation: probably both
for a server or client implmentation.  If the "goal" is something that will
compete with typing an nlsearch/alltheweb/altavista style search string
at a telnet prompt; encapsulation isn't the best answer to give such
an implementator.
  But consider it proposed and dropped - wanted the idea hanging around though,
     bob

-- 
Robert K. Waldstein                Email: wald@lucent.com
Bell Laboratories, Room 3D-591     Phone: (908) 582-6171
600 Mountain Avenue
Murray Hill, New Jersey  07974

Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2001 12:50:27 UTC