[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CAP: Ordering of the components returned by the search command.
Patrice Lapierre wrote:
> The latest proposal for CAP-QL states the following for the ordering
> of components returned by the search command:
> I see some problems/limitations with this approach:
> (1) Often a CUA is not interested in any particular ordering.
> Yet for VEVENTs an ordering is always defined. This causes
> unnecessary processing on the server side.
The (old) debate was that the default fetch should be by
DATE or RECURRANCE-ID in UTC. That evolved into what it is now.
> (2) When selecting everything (SELECT *) from a VEVENT. The
> CUA might be interested in another ordering than DTSTART
> (or RECURRENCE-ID).
> (3) When selecting everything (SELECT *) from a component
> that doesn't include a DTSTART, no ordering can be specified.
Not true, it is on the 1st item in the SELECT clause.
> (4) If the first property in the a select clause occurs more than
> once, the ordering is not defined.
Yes it is, it is by the first item in the SELECT clause.
> (5) If the first property in the select clause is not present,
> the ordering is not defined.
It has to have at least one item in the SELECT clause
or it is not a valid QUERY:
QUERY:SELECT FROM VEVENT ; Is not valid.
> To address these issues, I propose the addition of an optional
> "ORDER BY" clause (as in SQL). When not present no ordering is specified
> (this solves (1)).
We already beat this down and decided it could be an add on.
org:INET-Consulting LLC <http://INET-Consulting.com
title:Chief Executive Manager