[Koha] Saving MARC records very slow

[BWS Johnson]

Salvete!


>I find it totally undesirable to make or maintain any changes in the
cataloging module for the purpose of 
>going HTML-only. 


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but my sense was that a change or changes would
be made with paucity of code and processing time in mind. It was an
optimisation suggestion.


>
Your sense of server-side processing advantage may or may not translate
to an 
>advantage in actual environment constraints. Consider that adding a
repeatable field would have to 
>constitute a new request and response for each element, parsing the
marcxl each time, aggregating form 
>state changes in some yet undefined table. The server might validate
the end results faster, but getting 
>there just became 30 times as expensive and you still need to round
trip to the server to get the results.
>

Is that 30 times rooted in fact? Also, from what is being described, it
seems as though the long wait for the record's finalisation would be
traded for a few shorter waits upon edit. Do I have that right Rick?


>I'd wager that exactly zero of our clients would prefer scriptless
cataloguing, and would likewise be upset 
>for Koha to sacrifice scripted features for it.


I'd reckon none of your clients would care if the job were done, and a
whole bunch would be happier were the job done quicker. I don't think
anyone was calling for a full sack of JS, just suggesting a well
intended tinker to see if we can slim down an ugly just under a minute
wait. Have you tried this your way Rick? I'd love to see side by side
optimised versions to see what the pitfalls of both were.


>Cataloging is already a huge amount of logic. Duplicating the plugins
to operate cleanly as server-side 
>validators would be a major undertaking in itself, and be more likely
to introduce runtime warnings and 
>fatals.


True, but I'm always all ears about making cataloguing better. What we
have now is rather undesirable. I don't think anyone hinted that
tinkering with or improving cataloguing was easy. :)
For pros, (and it's been a while since I looked, so maybe this is
implemented, but I don't think so) would it save querying time if there
were a simple text box where one edited an entire MARC compliant or
single original record? I didn't have a text box for every field with
III, just a big old text box with a record. It seems to me as though
this would shift the processing burden to the server, as well, and
probably save time in the end. I realise the initial outlay of coding
time would be substantial, but the friendliness to experienced users
would most likely be worth it. Usability would be oh so much better,
too. (I still need to find the right star to wish on for guided
cataloguing for non pros :) )

Cheers,
Brooke


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/attachments/20090630/a18b5054/attachment.htm