On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Howard Chu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Howard Chu <email@example.com
OpenLDAP currently has a no-op implementation of SSS and no VLV. There's been> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> Using cursors for walking entry lists (and saving the cursor state) is
> certainly useful inside the server, but there's nothing you can
> safely gain
> from the client side.
> It kind of sounds like you're talking about Virtual List Views, not
> results. Remember that search responses in LDAP/X.500 are unordered by
> definition. Therefore it makes no sense for a standards-compliant
> client to
> send an initial request with a Paging control saying "start at responses
> 200-300" because the order in which entries will be returned is not
> You need something like VLV which requires SSS to even begin
> thinking about
> this; it's not a job for Paged Results.
> Yes you're totally right, I've confused the two controls. Thanks for the
> Either way we still need to implement both. Does OpenLDAP implements
> both of these controls? Any opinions or advice regarding implementation
> and or the actual utility of these controls?
some discussion about implementing them, but no one has been interested enough
to do it so far. The main problem being that SSS gets to be rather annoying in
the context of a truly distributed DIT, plus the CPU time involved makes the
whole proposition unscalable. This is one of those cases where, given 100s of
clients talking to a single server, it makes more sense to distribute the work
to the clients than to run hundreds of sort variations on the single server.
Netscape/iPlanet obviously took the opposite view, and decided there would
probably be small enough variation in the types of searches being used that
you could index them explicitly to avoid the overhead. We may follow on that
road as well, and just return UnwillingToPerform for searches that were not