On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:54:03 +0100 Jean-Francois Dockes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Magnus Bergman writes: > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:41:10 +0100 > > Jean-Francois Dockes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think that the sequence number can be kept implicit: > > > > > > Query (in s query_string, out i query_handle) > > > GetHitProperties ( in s query_handle, in i offset, in i > > > limit, in as properties, out (sequence of maps) > > > response ) > > > > What you call "offset" is exactly what I meant by "sequence > > number", if I didn't misunderstand something. The alternative > > (really keeping it implicit) would be to completely leave it out > > and just return the bunch of hits (much like how read(2) works. > > But that would also require a function similar to lseek(2), so I > > guess it wouldn't be simpler anyway. > > What I mean by: > > GetHitProperties ( in s query_handle, in i offset, in i limit, > in as properties, out (sequence of maps) response); > > is: return "limit" hits starting from offset "offset". This is a > combined lseek/read call. > > I propose that the hit numbers should be implicit *in the response*. > We know that it contains an ordered list of hits from number "offset" > to "offset+limit-1", so I think that there is no point in repeating > the hit number for every entry, as would (in your words): "A map > mapping each hit (sequence number) to a map of property-list of > values pairs" I was referring to how it would be handled by the search engine (instead of having an opaque identifier for each hit). To include the sequence/index numbers in the result didn't cross my mind. In other words, we seem to agree completely on this. _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
