[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [ldapext] Request Progress Reporting
Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
Howard Chu writes:
I forgot to mention - time intervals should probably be in units
smaller than seconds, but probably not smaller than milliseconds.
Human factors tells us that most users don't perceive lag until
intervals exceed 100ms.
"Surely only interactive programs will find a use for this feature."
Hmm.
That's hardly relevant. Much smaller intervals will also place an unreasonable
burden on the server. Also, you have platforms like Windows where the system
clock period is only 55ms anyway; there'd be no point in asking for anything
smaller.
BTW, we'll also need to define a dummy Intermediate Response, so
servers can send this control when they have nothing else to say.
I was suggesting we would define a ProgressReport Intermediate Response, which
would be sent in those situations. A dummy Intermediate Response could be more
useful in general, but I'm not sure whether it's within the scope of this
discussion. Certainly that would make processing a lot more uniform.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext