Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com designates
 74.125.78.27 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=fRRHZPbXTNElXVOhxsMgzEkXJM9tWzoi0SsFWK3BOBQQUbyaWoR4pquUQD1MFtfqUl
         mEBYiGyk9U+GANKv4N4+Jf59Iv/vG7Y7uxQumekBJ09oyAQkzy6Sd+LIiiuail4piBK8
         BY4x28KWrUCXLpL5xB2W8XJoS0qVU0C8QR8a0=
Sender: Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A0F5211.4040306@nextury.com>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 01:53:53 +0200
From: Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [index review] Existance/Existence/Presence index
References: <4A0BE9EC.5080707@nextury.com>
	 <a32f6b020905141332qa76cbedpc3b8f25533ca7623@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A0C96E7.6070703@nextury.com>
	 <a32f6b020905141559x126e082fm9547e3c89e278373@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A0D33A3.2020506@nextury.com>
 <4A0D34CC.1070200@symas.com>	 <4A0D35F5.1060609@nextury.com>
 <a32f6b020905161636y4110469u127b867782748ddd@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a32f6b020905161636y4110469u127b867782748ddd@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 5:29 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org>wrote:
>
>   
>> Howard Chu wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> while applying Kiran's patch for new system index, I found that we
>>>> should fix some inconsistency. We have what we name 'Existance' index,
>>>> which is the 'Presence' index.
>>>>
>>>> First, we should get rid of the 'existance' name, and replace it by
>>>> 'existence'.
>>>>
>>>> Second, we should keep only one of the 'existence' or 'presence'. Unless
>>>> I'm totally wrong, they are just the same. The question is which one
>>>> should we keep ? I would prefer keeping 'existence' rather than
>>>> presence, because it's more explicit.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts ?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> "Presence" has established history in the protocol specs...
>>>
>>>       
>
>
>   
>> As I replied to this mail in my response to your mail about the EntryCSN
>> (I'm a bit confused ...) :
>> - let's remove the exist[ae]nce and replace it by 'presence' (and not
>> presance ;)
>> - let's keep using a BTree for all those guys (UUID and entryCSN). We will
>> have to find time to experiment how many micro-seconds we may spare by using
>> a HTree on UUID later ;)
>>
>>     
>
> None of this context makes sense to me here Emm.
>   

Can you be a bit more explicit, Alex ?

-- 
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel L�charny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org