Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <3E0C71F9.8020509@dff.st>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:30:01 +0100
From: Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@dff.st>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Change in <esql:more-results> for postgresql
References: <36717.10.0.0.1.1040871671.squirrel@ags01.agsoftware.dnsalias.com>
        <37505.10.0.0.1.1040889855.squirrel@ags01.agsoftware.dnsalias.com>
        <39438.10.0.0.1.1040944136.squirrel@ags01.agsoftware.dnsalias.com>
        <1040948705.939.12.camel@defiant.dff.local>
 <39811.10.0.0.1.1040954735.squirrel@ags01.agsoftware.dnsalias.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <36717.10.0.0.1.1040871671.squirrel@ags01.agsoftware.dnsalias.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> This is why I started thinking about this issue and suggested the
> workaround. I think the solutions is not too ugly because is better to get
> 5 rows in a resultset than 8,000 or more, just to get the row number 5 and
> trigger the  tag.


Thanks for reporting, Antonio.

I've had a closer look. I think you are right. It's not too bad.

If one uses the esql:row-count tag (which is an additional count query) 
it wouldn't be necessary to get another row because we know about the 
total number rows of the result. But since I don't wanna force to have a 
count query for everyone using the more-results tag I think we are 
better off with the additional row - as you proposed.

I added this to the javadocs and all the different database query 
implementations. Please crosscheck and report back if it works for you.
--
Torsten


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org