[OAI-implementers] error questions

Simeon Warner simeon@cs.cornell.edu
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 15:19:27 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Louis Feng wrote:
> > From: Simeon Warner [mailto:simeon@cs.cornell.edu] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 12:10 AM
> >
> > I disagree. Arguments that are not 'required', 'optional' or 
> > 'exclusive' are 'illegal' and should generate badArgument 
> > errors. This is how I read the spec for badArgument:
> Thanks for clarify this. This does make OAI more restrictive, what is
> the benefit of doing so? 

I think it follows the general principle that strong error checking is
better than weak error checking. The simpler and tighter the specification
the more likely it is that different implementations will interoperate as
intended. This serves the goals of the OAI.

(It is clearly possible to extend the protocol and I know people are
building systems for which this is necessary. However, I'd say this should
be done only when additional functionality is required.)


> Louis