Subject: Re: Use of "Scheduling Inbox" & search

From: "Frank Dawson/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:51:21 -0400

>Yes and no.  First of all, yes, something in the server has to be able to
>parse the whole thing; but that something may be an off-the-shelf SQL
>library; if inbox items are in a separate table, the upper layers may need
>to do some preprocessing, and it'd be nice if that preprocessing can be
kept
>as simple.

John: The SQL-like notation of the VQUERY feature in CAP does not require
the backend utilize an SQL library. This syntax was selected because it was
thought that programmers were generally familiar with this form. So, the
parser _could_ use SQL, rather than "may". This is important semantic
difference to note. We are not requiring that our notation be SQL or
entirely implementable in SQL. A subtle distinction.

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:54:34 +0000

Frank Dawson/CAM/Lotus wrote:

> the backend utilize an SQL library.

I didn't say it had to be.

> So, the
> parser _could_ use SQL, rather than "may".

Right--but the ability to use SQL is not much of a win if the implementation
has to duplicate the parsing done by a SQL library.

--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke    | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK  |
[email-masked]|============================================|
|Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed |
|eCal Corp.      |  by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch |
\=============================================================/