I appreciate that you will consider this request. I always thought it would be trivial to implement. Your simulation mode sounds very much like what I had in mind. I hadn't thought it necessary to get a response from a log request, but if there was a simple response, it could be used as a ping, or it could be used to retry logging until the provider did respond. So, something like <log request received>. I think the addition of logOnly attribute is a good one, and could apply to every request type.
Javi, I don't disagree that portals SHOULD log the data usage, especially to cover the situations where a provider doesn't respond. I also think that having the information logged at the provider is a responsible course of action, since they will have immediate access to the usage statistics that way. It will be much easier for a portal builder to send log requests than it will be to build the infrastructure and interfaces to logs, therefore it is more likely to actually get done.
On 7/18/06, Javier de la Torre jatorre@mncn.csic.es wrote:
I am not sure about this,
I still think that portals should be gathering this data and making it available for data providers...
But in any case if you like it then I agree with MArkus that the best is to include another parameter in the operationRequestGroup.
I havent checked but what happens if you do an extension there with an attribute that is implementation specific? A qualified attribute. Will this still validate against our schema? You were discussing about qualification of attributes before no?
Javi.
On 18/07/2006, at 10:41, Döring, Markus wrote:
John, all changes going on with TAPIR right now are really only changes in terminology or removing inconsistencies we did not detect before we started the documentation and final implementation.
But nevertheless I would support your request. Especially from the implementation side of view this is a trivial change to the code. So why dont add it? Just some additional thoughts:
- Ive added a "simulation" mode already to my code where no SQL
gets executed but just logged. So you can test configurations without risking sending off killer statements. Thats similar to logOnly I guess, returning nothing but diagnostics. What would you suggest to be returned for a logOnly request? just the empty TAPIR envelope? Nothing? <OK>?
- would this log-only request not be needed for all requests? at
least for inventories? So it would be easiest to have a new logOnly parameter in the header or "request element" just after the header? something like <search logOnly="true">
-- Markus
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: pywrapper-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:pywrapper-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net] Im Auftrag von John R. WIECZOREK Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juli 2006 23:30 An: Renato De Giovanni Cc: pywrapper-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org Betreff: Re: [PyWrapper-devel] [tdwg-tapir] RE: WG: tapir: capabilities
A little off topic, but it occurs to me that a great deal of work is still ongoing with TAPIR, which suggests to me that it may be warranted to re-state my request for a simple message type - a log request. This request would be the same as a search request, except that the caller doesn't need a response. Providers would use this type of request to log data usage if the data were retrieved from a cache elsewhere. I remember talking about this in Berlin, at which time there was supposed to be a feature freeze. Clearly we've gone beyond that, so I'm requesting it again.
On 7/17/06, Renato De Giovanni renato@cria.org.br wrote:
Hi, If I remember well, the "view" operation was re-included in the protocol just to handle query templates, especificallyfor TapirLite providers. So if someone wants to query a provider using some external output model that should be dynamically parsed, then the "search" operation must be used instead (using either XML or simple GET request). View operations are really bound to query templates, and they are not allowed to specify "filter" or "partial" parameters. -- Renato
On 17 Jul 2006 at 21:26, "Döring, Markus" wrote: > I was just about to edit the schema and realizingthat output models > are only specified for searches. but what about views? they use > query templates, yes. but only the ones listed in capabilities? we > should have dynamic ones here as well I think. And they link back to > static/dynamic models. > > So should models maybe become a seperate section not tight to > search/view operations? I am going to modify the schema nevertheless > already to accomodate the changes below - ignoring views for now. > > Markus
_______________________________________________ tdwg-tapir mailing list tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
tdwg-tapir mailing list tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir