https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=27584
--- Comment #20 from Ere Maijala <[email protected]> --- Thanks for the comments and review! Indeed, things will be easier when deleted records are included in the normal tables, but for now this is quite alright, and there's no need to union them all together. I think there's an advantage with tracking the different timestamps even if it's more complicated. When item data is not included, it wouldn't be useful to harvest biblios as updated when an item changes, since the biblio record would be identical. If you meant that we could have another timestamp that would indicate the latest change for the logical record that OAI-PMH would provide, yeah, that'd work, but trying to track latest item changes in biblios would complicate other functionality and could also have unintended consequences such as increased overhead for batch operations. Also, I'm still optimistic that we can get bug 20447 merged somewhere in the future, and that would add to the complexity. As I see it, the "proper" solution would be to have a publishing process that would run in background to create sets of records for harvesting. With published sets we could handle inclusion of items, deletions etc. in the publishing process, and the OAI-PMH provider would only need to serve the results. However, this would be a whole lot more complicated than what we currently do, and there'd be a fair chance that the publishing process would do a lot of work to create result sets that nobody ever harvests. Additionally, it would make quick (semi-realtime) incremental harvesting impossible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
