[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: Overlay Documentation
Well, you should make sure that you understand the behavior of the code;
then you can get the current sources of the admin guide from the CVS:
if you prefer a regular checkout. You can then submit changes by
producing a diff and sending it (via ITS is the preferred mechanism; open
one for any well defined issue, or continue yours). I suggest you submit
changes only when they look complete and detailed enough; if there are
open issues, simply discuss them on the -devel list. Please read the
contributing guidelines for details
I really suggest you also work by annotated examples; a good starting
point would be the proxycache test in tests/scripts/test020-proxycache
> I'm not quite sure what I should do, kinda it's a bug or a feature ?
> For example, the doc does not speak about query containment. ( actually
> the paper the docs points to does, however the syntax it's using is
> different from the actual used one )
> If I cash a query that has brings back "sn, cn, telephoneNumber, mail"
> and make a new query asking only for "sn, cn" ( other stuff remains
> the same, obviously )
> Should this be answered from the cache or not ?
> Query containment should mean it comes from the cache, actually it's not
> answerable ( info from the log file ).
> Is this a bug, or is this ok ?
> These are the things I miss in the admin guide.
> Again, I would volunteer to contribute to the documentation . . .
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Chu [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: giovedì 18 marzo 2004 18.16
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; Voglmaier, Reinhard Erich
> Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
> Subject: RE: Overlay Documentation
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
>> [mailto:owner-openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Pierangelo
>> > I posted a suggestion about the "proxy cache" chapter in the issue
>> tracking system some time ago. In the meantime I played around with
>> the overlay cache. I
>> found out that
>> > documentation is not very aligned with what the sw is
>> actually doing.
>> > Therefore I would propose to review the chapter in order to align it
>> more to the actual release.
> At this point any difference betwen the code and the doc must be a bug
> in the code, because the doc looks right to me... Please point out the
> inconsistencies in an ITS report.