On 15/05/2014 11:25 AM, John Leiseboer wrote:
11.10 Locate (error handling) should be updated
as well for the case where the specified offset is greater
than the object count. Either the existing ‘Operation
Failed’/’Invalid Field’ should be reused with the definition
updated, or a new Result Reason (‘Offset exceeds object
count’) should be specified.
That raises the whole nothing-to-return is it an error or not issue
- in that is this returning a set and in which case an empty list is
a good indication that the criteria wasn't matched or the count was
beyond what was available. We already previously discussed that at
the face to face that returning an empty list is the defined
behaviour - having no results is not an error condition.
If you view the offset should be range checked and return an error
then what should the return be if the Maximum Items specified is 0?
That isn't currently specified as an error either (nor should it be
in my view).
The proposal also does not return the available count - which would
be good to see (and we currently include in our vendor extension
which handles the equivalent concept of an offset) - but just allows
specification of the offset.
The equivalent SQL offset + limit handling certainly does not
consider specifying an offset beyond the result set as an error nor
does it consider a limit of 0 to be an error and simply sees those
items as handling the sub-setting of the result set including
generating an empty result set if processing either the limit or the
offset results in there being no results. The discussions previously
seemed settled on the Locate operation being very much the "select"
for objects.
Summary: there is no need for an error code for range checking on
either the maximum items or the offset items values.
Thanks,
Tim.
