2008/5/7 Jos van den Oever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/5/7 Philip Van Hoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Calling a discussed solution that we intent to move to spec as soon as > > possible proprietary because somebody does not want to utilise an > > extremely loosely specified hack that only works by accident*, is > rather > > sad. > > > > I have better things to do with my time, really. > > If someone says: i'll add such a function regardless of the spec, then > yes, that's proprietary. > As Mikkel has replied, the proposed solution is absolutely no hack. > The documentation needs to be improved a bit, but that's it. > > I care just as much about the spec as anyone here and I'd hate to see > it being fragmented in a 1.1 and 2.0. If there is no pressing need to > change what we have, shouldn't. Perfection is the enemy of success and > this is even more true for trying to write specs. Even when the spec > writers love each other as much as we do. :-P
I will be gone until Monday or Tuesday. Feel free to continue the flamefest while I am gone, but I think it would be a good idea to ponder this a few days befire we flame on anyways. Just a thought before I sign off for now - if the idea is to do really really optimized paging then GetPagedHits (s, offset, count) might not be what we want. By using a search.pagesize session property the call could be reduced to GetHitPage (s, page_num) and the server would have a chance to pre-prepare the pages for maximum efficiency. Other small tweaks might be possible. This is Jamie's original 3). Cheers, Mikkel
_______________________________________________ Xesam mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xesam
