As an afterthought to my previous message (sorry), the result list could change if the query has to be re-run. This is a good reason for keeping the uris as document identifiers for getSnippets().
jf Jean-Francois Dockes writes: > Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen writes: > > 2006/12/19, Jean-Francois Dockes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Ok, so you don't request "Snippet" as a property in the initial query, and > re-call Query() with the appropriate record number, requesting the > "Snippet" property for the record you want the Snippet for. If getting a > snippet is slow and costly, using a dbus transaction for it should not be an > issue. > > Or if you really want to, you could define a call requesting snippets for a > list of result numbers. All I'm saying is that 'URI' is not a good result > identifier. > > > These was the reasons why I split the methods like I did and I still think > > they hold... > > My central point is that 'URI' is not a good result identifier. Results are > not organized by URI either on the application or backend side. The result > list is an ordered sequence, the natural accessor is the number in the > sequence. > > Regards, > J.F. Dockes _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
