[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [ldap] LDAP SDK API question.
- To: Ian Bruce <ianbruce@lucent.com>
- Subject: Re: [ldap] LDAP SDK API question.
- From: JR Heisey <jr.heisey@mediagate.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 15:00:40 -0800
- Cc: ldap@umich.edu, openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
- Organization: MediaGate, Inc.
- References: <LYR4632-2365-1998.11.17-07.52.41--kristian#netscape.com@listserver.itd.umich.edu> <LYR8267-2841-1998.11.24-21.53.37--ian#dismay.ih.lucent.com@listserver.itd.umich.edu> <LYR17895-9870-1999.03.26-17.16.46--jr.heisey#mediagate.com@listserver.itd.umich.edu>
The Mozilla code is implemented is implemented both ways. The timeout
value is sent to the server thus the server could timeout. The ldap_search_st()
calls the ldap_result() function and passes the timeout. ldap_result() will
also return when the timeout duration has elapsed.
The OpenLDAP seems to rely on the ldap_result() function to perform
the timeout. However the as the search is sent to the server the member timelimit
var of the LDAP structure is sent. I consider this an incorrect implementation
because the timelimit var of the LDAP structure can never be overridden
with the timeout value passed to ldap_search_st().
Thought I'd cross post the to the OpenLDAP group.
JR
Ian Bruce wrote:
> Does the ldap_search_st() function depend in any way on the server or is it just
> a client side timeout mechanism?
> --
>
> Ian Bruce
> (630) 713-7387
> ianbruce@lucent.com
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ldap@umich.edu as: [jr.heisey@mediagate.com]
> To unsubscribe send email to ldap-request@umich.edu with the word UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT of the message.
--
-
J. R. Heisey