Re: ACTION-43 Draft use case for ordering

hello richard.

On 2013-03-26 01:52 , "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>On 25 Mar 2013, at 23:54, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote:
>>typically, you would have shortish pages, even if your container has
>> millions of entries, so as long as sorting only is done and exposed on a
>> per-page basis, it's probably not all that costly.
>I suppose. OTOH, paging and sorting could be treated independently, so
>that servers would have the option if expressing order even for unpaged
>containers. I think that would be good, as an option.

we should definitely treat paging and sorting at independent features, but
they should be exposed in a unified way, if these are capabilities that
clients can choose to use or not (give me sorted/unsorted, or even sorted
by a specific key; give me paged/unpaged, or even paged by a certain page
size).

cheers,

dret.

Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 19:59:20 UTC