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

Re: (ITS#5092) page size value of 1.2.840.113556.1.4.319 control

randolf.werner@sap.com wrote:
> Hi,
> =20
> thanks for your replies. Anyway i did not opened this message to discuss
> who implented RFC 2696 correctly and who not.  The point is something
> else:

The point is that there is a specific definition of the protocol. When vendors 
implement the protocol incorrectly, interoperability suffers. The fix for those 
interoperability problems is to take steps to ensure that vendors don't deviate 
from the published specifications. Likewise, application developers must pay 
attention to the published specs and write compliant code. Otherwise the entire 
concept of published standards is meaningless.

> Here is why i believe others might run into the same issue. If you need
> to create a ldap client dealing with big search results for various LDAP
> directories you had to use 1.2.840.113556.1.4.319 even if you are only
> interested in collecting the entire result otherwise you would fail with
> Active Directory.

Nonsense. You simply ask your AD administrator to raise the default sizelimit, 
the same way you would ask an OpenLDAP administrator to do the same thing.

> I am not interested in discussing who is right and who is wrong, i am
> just interested in making as much as possible working together in the
> real world with as little as possible customer pain.

In the real world, if you ignore the specs, your programs break. If you adhere 
to the specs, your programs keep working.

What you're asking for is the equivalent of this: "My Microsoft building has a 
nail sticking out on the floor and I keep tripping over it when I walk by. Your 
OpenLDAP building is missing this nail; please pull a nail out so I can trip 
over it the same way."
   -- Howard Chu
   Chief Architect, Symas Corp.  http://www.symas.com
   Director, Highland Sun        http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
   Chief Architect, OpenLDAP     http://www.openldap.org/project/