"James \"Doc\" Livingston" writes: > On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 19:07 +0100, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > > About 2), URI *is* an appropriate handle, and probably the best as long as > > we can't guarantee the stability of the result set (that is: *if* we need > > separate Query() and GetSnippets() calls, *then* the URI is probably the > > best identifier to ensure consistency). > > What if the URI of a given item can change? I'm think in particular of > the backends which handle "file got moved" in ways other the simple > "remove old and add new" method. > > If you had to retrieve the URI as a property rather than it being a > unique identifier there would still obviously be some issues for things > that are using the simple non-live interface, but potentially having > stale data is what you get from using a non-live query. > > Using an old URI as the unique identifier to retrieve other data (like > snippets or something) could lead to some odd situations.
Oops, yes, you're right the URI can change too. Lacking stable item identifiers, the only solution I can see is to have the initial query create and return a unique query identifier. We would then rely on the database/index manager to ensure that all activity related to this query identifier is either consistent or resulting in errors. The query string can't be used as a query identifier, except if we strictly renounce relating data from different calls. Well, at least we now know why it didn't look right :) J.F. Dockes _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
