|
>>>> Harald Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no> 11/28/00 2:13:33 AM >>> >At 20:16 16/11/2000 +0100, Roland Hedberg wrote: >>What if you have a master and a slave where the slave only replicates certain >>attributes. Clearly a query given to the master and the slave might return >>different answers, hence given the definition in RFC2251 and my >>interpretation, >>they ought not to be put in the same continuation reference. > >Right. > >If you can predict reliably that the result to the client will be different >for 2 different continuation URLs, they SHOULD NOT be put in the same >continuation reference. > >Sending referrals to both rich and sparse replicas (unless you know that >all attributes asked for are present in the sparse replica) is a sure way >to get the user to conclude that the service is broken. > >And that doesn't make sense. I agree, currently the text makes it a MUST, and doesn't talk
about the condition where the server can make no predictions (a situation that I
think should be accounted for) .
Jim
|