Harvesting experiences

[KevinBenson]

Yes that is correct search interface does not return deleted records.  I 
will double check the spec on that as well.  I think XQuerySearch is the 
one exception since it is the client that does the full xquery.

cheers,
Kevin

Ray Plante wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>> Linde, A.E. wrote:
>>> I would have thought that deleted records should only be returned if 
>>> they were recently deleted and the request is for an 'records 
>>> updated since ...' but a request for ALL records should not bother 
>>> with deleted records. That'd work,wouldn't it?
>
> A quick note on this.  The Registry Interfaces standard makes no 
> distinction between deleted and non-deleted records within the 
> harvesting interface.  This is indeed what you want.  A harvester, 
> when it encounters a deleted record, can choose to handle it in any 
> way it desires.  For example, it can truely deleted all trace of it in 
> its own database.  Since most harvests are incremental, the harvester 
> should not be further bothered by a deleted record (unless it is later 
> undeleted).  The cost is then only on the originating registry.  Such 
> a registry may consider an alternative storage mechanism for deleted 
> records to reduce internal overhead (e.g. of having deleted records 
> cluttering up the searchable database).
>
> Note, however, that we have said that the search interface does not 
> return deleted records by default, although I'm not actually seeing 
> any mention of this in the spec.  Am I remembering this correctly?  
> (Kevin?)
>
> hope this helps,
> Ray