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

Re: connection pooling in back-ldap?

   Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:38:11 -0700
   From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>

   At 01:20 PM 2002-10-14, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
   >Oh, I agree that the library can and should support threading
   >better. But a lot of the problems you mention are really the result of
   >the lack of a widespread Unix event model. async i/o sucks under Unix
   >and I'm not totally optimistic for the future.

   While I agree that SIGIO-based async I/O in Unix sucks, that's
   wasn't what I was referring to.

   The "async LDAP API" refers to LDAP API calls which separate
   request sending from response gathering (e.g. ldap_search(3) and
   ldap_result(3)).  Calls in the API which both send a request and
   gather its responses (e.g. ldap_search_s(3)) are referred to as
   being synchronous.

Yes, I understand this. However, since Unix doesn't have an event
model, it is unclear what model libraries are suppose to adapt to
integrate cleanly with each other for applications.

Ideally, an application would want to be able to be notified on an
LDAP event OR an SNMP OR a "file descriptor read finished" event. Unix
gives no abstraction other than a file descriptors to implement these
kinds of abstractions, thus libraries are forever stuck to choose
their own event models. And libraries with different event models of
course won't interoperate cleanly.