[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Why ldap_<first,next>_attribute ?

To: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Why ldap_<first,next>_attribute ?
From: Ian Bruce <ian@iexist.flw.lucent.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 09:47:02 -0600
Cc: Malcolm Boff <Malcolm_Boff@compuserve.com>, Ian Bruce <ianbruce@lucent.com>, Marcelo Lang <lang@pop.hsbcbamerindus.com.br>, ldapext <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>
Delivered-to: ldapext-archive@critical-angle.com
Organization: Lucent Technologies -- Prototyping Platform Dept.
Original-cc: Malcolm Boff <Malcolm_Boff@compuserve.com>, Ian Bruce <ianbruce@lucent.com>, Marcelo Lang <lang@pop.hsbcbamerindus.com.br>, ldapext <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>
References: <HBF.980227s9xl@bombur2.uio.no>
Resent-date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 07:47:14 -0800 (PST)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"6pFWw2.0.6g4.00kzq"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> 
> ldap-c-api seems to invite some misunderstandings.
> 
> * Malcolm Boff and Ian Bruce write that ldap_get_attributes() may run
>   into memory problems after a very large search response.
>
No misunderstanding!

I already said that I was thinking of ldap_<first,next>_ENTRY  not
ATTRIBUTE. Clearly the attribute case doesn't have any memory
implications and probably is used just to be consistent with the higher
level pattern, which doesn't lend itself to an "array" solution. I
apoligize for ever saying word one!

The question was hypothetical anyway
-- 

Ian Bruce
(630) 713-7387
ianbruce@lucent.com

References:
- Re: Why ldap_<first,next>_attribute ?
  - From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>

Prev by Date: Re: Scrolling vs Paging (Re: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-asid-ldapv3-simplepaged-02.txt)
Next by Date: RE: Scrolling vs Paging (Re: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-asid-ldapv3-s implepaged-02.txt)
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread