Re: Explain-lite (Explain discussion)

( changed the subject - since am trying to dfocus on explain-lite aspect)

> In the ONE-2 project, we are now very close to completing our explain-lite
> XML approach. This was created because the requirement was to be able to 
> have a flexible and quick way to identify the most commonly used server
> parameters - many of the other parameters in the standard that are in
> explain we have omitted - these parameters are often only used in a
> "private" scenario, where details would be known anyway between client and
> server through prior arrangement.

EXPLAIN is for clients.  My hope for EXPLAIN was that servers would be asked
to populate fields that it had no idea why a client would want, and thus
support client functionality beyond the common.   But even without this hope
I wonder how you defined "common" - I only use 7 or 8 fields, I hope all and
only those are "commonly used".
  Z39.50 does have this ongoing problem of appearing complex - but in
EXPLAIN like Z39.50 you can ignore all but what you actually need or care
about - the rest is noise, and easy in this case to ignore...


> I think that to re-invent explain in the context of its current model is
> essentially a waste of time - the current model has been around for over 5
> years now, it was seriously pushed by the ONE project, it was pushed
> by the explain test bed and the number of implementations as far as I 
> know is minimal. I dont see that changing the query syntax or
> the ASN.1 definition of the record syntax is going to encourage a majority
> of folk to think differently about implementing.

And XML is going to be different why??  TO me that is no different than a
change to the ASN.1 definiton.


> - our proposed use is to carry this as an XML external on the Init
>   service means that none of the explain database or the explain querying
>   has to be supported;


I have alot of trouble with this.  So I have approx 300 databases, all with 
their own layout.  I send this everytime to every client? CHecked - it is
12 Meg.  And note my "common" is probably smaller than yours - certainly
BER/ASN.1 is smaller than XML.  And no caching - since doing it in init?
  I always thought this was a clever part of the EXPLAIN model - clients
ask for just what they need.

  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 Thursday, 16 November 2000 14:39:17 UTC