[Koha-bugs] [Bug 7613] OCLC Connexion Gateway, including extension svc/import_bib

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7613

--- Comment #39 from Srdjan Jankovic <srdjan at catalyst.net.nz> ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> Srdjan,
> 
> The change was not merely aesthetic; I was unable to make pure-XML requests
> such as the new_bib functionality work when using the OCLC Connexion
> Web--"working but different than planned" when planned doesn't work, implies
> a flawed plan.
> 
> The new_bib functionality doesn't take into account the desired settings for
> overlay, matching, etc; it just does a brute-force AddBiblio. The Connexion
> listener provides for setting up values for overlay, matching, item
> processing, and default framework, so making import_bib *not* be a drop-in
> replacement here is quite okay; it actually allows the Connexion listener to
> work as designed.

That is perfectly fine. I asked the question because when given the task, the
spec said that it was intended to be a drop in replacement for new_bib, and I
used it as the starting point. It is possible that I took it a bit too far with
the interpertation of "drop-in". I agree that the most important thing is that
it does the job.

> OCLC Connexion Web and the OCLC Connexion Client are two entirely different
> animals--they send the data differently, and their behavior after doing so
> is different as well.  Connexion Web sends the data blindly, and says,
> "okay, I did it," pretty-much regardless of what is going on in the Koha
> end--even if the service is *not turned on*.  The Connexion Desktop Client,
> however, actually initiates a connection to the Koha system, confirms the
> functionality, knows to log in and what will happen if it can't, and waits
> for an answer from the Koha end to make sure the record was added.  Much
> superior, which is why the sponsoring libraries are *NOT* using Connexion
> Web.

That is another thing. I was not aware that it was supposed to be testing it
with a windows client that I don't have. I would have discussed it more had I
known.

> 
> Nonetheless, I wanted this to actually work for both.  And now it does.

Thanks a lot for taking this over under the circumstances, and apologies for
the pain caused.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.