On 16/05/2014 6:05 AM, John Leiseboer wrote:
>
If you are suggesting that the order of objects
returned from Locate should be made to be required to be
deterministic then you should perhaps raise that as a separate
proposal.
No. I am not
suggesting this at all, as this would not solve the issue.
Given the discussion at the last face to face I’m reluctant to
raise much at all. I just wanted to point out, and you have
confirmed, that the proposed solution is not consistent with
the specification, and that it is not robust to implementation
differences (or in other words, it relies on server
implementations being “sensible”, where sensible does not mean
designed in accordance with the specification).
Actually no John - I'm pointing out that the item you are raising in
the context of this issue is an item we have as a technical
committee previously determined did not need to be set as a
requirement. If you want to revisit that issue then you should raise
the base issue independent of the proposal that updates a feature.
This proposal is entirely consistent with the specification - it
continues to not mandate (or preclude) a specific order.
The specification does not mandate a particular design for a server
(that is a non-goal) - it specifies an interoperability protocol -
server design is left to the implementers of each server.
Tim.
