[Rets-dev] I'm developing a RETS 2.0 server. Are there any RETS2.0clients to validate with?

[Sergio Del Rio]

Actually, it all started on the rets-dev list and then we talked about it
again in Rockville (if you are talking about altering the query language
that is).

Update - We are working on coming to an agreement as to what should be in
update based on all the RCP's that I proposed way back and trying to bring
that forward to RETS 2.0.  I have also talked to Paula and the existing
Update transaction in RETS 2.0 should actually be functional in many ways,
although it lacks all the rules, validation external and validation lookup
logic that we have in RETS 1.X.  We will be working to bring these forward
into RETS 2.0.

Regards,
Sergio Del Rio
Templates 4 Business Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: rets-dev-bounces at rets.org [mailto:rets-dev-bounces at rets.org] On Behalf
Of Matt Lavallee
Sent: July 27, 2007 12:09 PM
To: rets-dev at rets.org
Subject: RE: [Rets-dev] I'm developing a RETS 2.0 server. Are there any
RETS2.0clients to validate with?

On Friday, July 27, 2007 at 1:58 PM, Paul wrote:

> I think we are having semantic rather than substance differences here.
> 
> I don't think that we determined that it was insufficient, only that it
> would force implementations to limit the response depth and that
> responses would generally be excessively large - a bad thing. More
> semantic than substance - a way to control the response documents is a
> very good thing and that is what we are discussing.

I think Sergio actually raised the point at Rockville, and something in my
brain
suggests that it was with respect to Phone Numbers, but it could have been
something else...  The generalized problem was that RQL afforded no way to
correlate payloads at points where no Key structure existed, particularly in
doing "upstream" queries (what Member has xyz element value when that
element is
defined in a payload/schema inherited by Member).

> In Minnetonka, Matt brought forward a very interesting suggestion and
> solution that has resulted in the need to revisit the query language
> which will be discussed in the Chicago meeting.

I, of course, think it is the most efficient (and simple!) approach. :)

> I don't believe that the Service Compliance document has been completed.
> It definitely has not been adopted.

Can we get a placeholder on the site?  I only ask because the Service
Document
refers to it for some key information and I thought it was lost in the site
transition.

-Matt


_______________________________________________
Rets-dev mailing list
Rets-dev at rets.org
http://lists.rets.org/mailman/listinfo/rets-dev