<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Hi Markus,</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Il giorno mer 2 set 2020 alle ore 17:09 Markus Demleitner <<a href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de">msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de</a>> ha scritto:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Marco,<br>
<br>
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 09:49:41AM +0200, Molinaro, Marco wrote:<br>
> Still I have a small concern about MAXREC=0 reading DALI-1.1<br>
> section 3.4.4, second half of it.<br>
> It seems that<br>
> - or we clearly state that MAXREC=0 in ConeSearch should avoid<br>
> request execution (because there's a risk of failure there)<br>
> - or we touch slightly DALI avoiding MAXREC=0 to fail<br>
> <br>
> I'd say the first is simpler and safer, but, in both cases, since<br>
> DALI simply says "containing metadata" without any further detail,<br>
> there's the need to detail the metadata response solution.<br>
<br>
Well, I understand that in general it's a good idea to improve<br>
robustness by cutting down on dependencies, but in this case I'd say<br>
the win is negligible: A client requesting MAXREC=0 probably does<br>
that because in the next step it wants to run an actual query. If<br>
that later query fails, nothing is won if MAXREC=0 succeeded.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Agreed, I didn't think about this scenario.</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The only scenario I could see where a more robust MAXREC=0 operation<br>
might improve things is for metadata harvesting. But there I'd say<br>
we shouldn't do that through SCS anywey -- we have the Registry,<br>
vs:ParamHTTP, and OAI-PMH for that kind of thing, and if there's<br>
anything missing from that combo that MAXREC=0 can do, we ought to<br>
fix the combo rather than harden MAXREC=0.<br>
<br>
So: +1 for just referencing DALI, plus regulations on how the input<br>
parameters should be represented. For that second part, I'm a bit<br>
undecided: We could copy what SIAP and SSAP do -- works, but feels a<br>
bit stuffy --, or we could borrow from Datalink and have the input<br>
parameters in a dedicated GROUP of a separate, non-result, RESOURCE<br>
(which is a bit less hacky, but of course different from S*AP).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">I suppose the only way to go is try.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Currently I'd be more inclined towards borrowing from DataLink, </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">also because IIRC SIAP there was v.1 and SSAP might need an update.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">However I haven't a clear view nor a strong opinion.</div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Cheers</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"> Marco</div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Hm...<br>
<br>
-- Markus<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="monospace">Marco Molinaro</font></div><div><font face="monospace">INAF - Istituto Nazionale di AstroFisica</font></div><div><font face="monospace">Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste</font></div><div><font face="monospace">email <a href="mailto:marco.molinaro@inaf.it" target="_blank">marco.molinaro@inaf.it</a></font></div><div><span style="font-family:monospace">tel. +39 040 3199 152</span><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>