Re: Protocol operations proposal deadline

HI,

Maybe I read too much into the response from MarkE. Sorry. If we agree,
then great. As long as the operation allows a request to return in
parallel columns from separate tables, then I'm for it.

At 08:41 AM 9/15/2002 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 03:36:16 -0700, "David T. Perkins" <[email protected]> said:
>
>David> I have a fundamental problem of viewing filtering as a way to
>David> "remove" the "columns" (attributes) returned by an
>David> operation. This implies that the operation is retrieving all
>David> columns (attributes) of all instances (rows) of an object class
>David> (table). This is both wasteful and limiting.
>
>David, I don't totally understand what you're trying to get at but
>based on what you've said I'm pretty sure I'm not doing anything that
>you dislike.  Specifically, I'm not sure why you think I said the
>operations would be retrieving all attributes of all instances.  I
>specifically tried to say the opposite in that the attributes being
>returned would be limited.
Regards,
/david t. perkins