Re: revised LDAPEXT charter

[howes@netscape.com (Tim Howes)]

Hi Harald,
I don't agree with your assessment of this work
item, but I don't have a problem with it going on
the experimental track, at least until you have a
chance to be convinced of the sheer genius of
it all. :-)                              -- Tim

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Mark,
>
> thanks for the charter update.
> I'm CCing this message to the LDAPEXT list, because I think
> we need to work this out with the list.
>
> I'm definitely of the opinion that the Right Target for
> triggered search is Experimental, not Proposed.
>
> I think it is an out-and-out bad idea to hack this
> functionality straight into the general LDAP service;
> it basically splits the LDAP server community into two
> parts that will be optimized for different purposes.
>
> The extension is basically allowing the definition of
> arbitrary-complexity search expressions, each of which
> must be executed at each and every update of the database
> (and in the scenarios where it makes sense, updates are
> expected to be frequent). A server that is optimized for
> such queries will be a VERY different beast from the
> read-mostly, relatively-static data that most current
> LDAP implementations are created for.
>
> (The wahl-trigger seems better than the psearch
> draft in this regard, because it allows the code
> to be isolated to that part of the server dealing with
> the changelog - but I'm not sure the functionality
> here is what people want.)
>
> Note that there are other protocols being proposed
> that are explicitly aimed at change notification;
> RVP (draft-calsyn-rvp-00.txt) is only one of them.
>
> What is the opinion of other people on the list?
>
>                        Harald A
>
> NOTE: New Email address: Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no
> I am working for Maxware (www.maxware.no) as of Dec 1, 1997