RE: Proxycache Documentation

["Voglmaier, Reinhard Erich" <rv33100@gsk.com>]

Pardon, this is a typo. The search pattern is always the same. (sn=Voglma*)

-----Original Message-----
From: Apurva Kumar [mailto:kapurva@in.ibm.com] 
Sent: giovedì 1 aprile 2004 13.14
To: Voglmaier, Reinhard Erich
Cc: 'Howard Chu'; openldap-devel@openldap.org;
owner-openldap-devel@openldap.org
Subject: RE: Proxycache Documentation







(sn=Voglm*) can not be answered from (sn=Volgma*) because the latter is more
restrictive than the former.

Regards,
Apurva

-------

Apurva Kumar,
Research Staff Member,
IBM India Research Lab
Phone: +91-11-26861100
Fax: +91-11-26861555


 

                      "Voglmaier, Reinhard

                      Erich"                        To:       "'Howard Chu'"
<hyc@highlandsun.com>                                          
                      <rv33100@gsk.com>             cc:
openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org

                      Sent by:                      Subject:  RE: Proxycache
Documentation                                                  
                      owner-openldap-devel@O

                      penLDAP.org

 

 

                      04/01/04 04:14 PM

 

 




I've read carefully the post of Kumar. I have also defined the attribute
set.

proxyAttrset 0 mail sn givenName telephoneNumber
proxyTemplate (sn=) 0 3600

Therefore the search (sn=Voglma*) mail sn givenName telephoneNumber

Results: cacheable.

The search (sn=Voglm*) mail therefore should be answerable from the cache.
Is this correct or do I misunderstand the documentation ?

If it is correct, I should submiss a bug report, because on my machine ( SUN
Solaris 2.9 ) it doesn't work like that. If it is not correct the
documentation should be changed ( the example I added to the admin manual
some time ago )

Cheers
Reinhard


-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Chu [mailto:hyc@highlandsun.com]
Sent: venerdì 26 marzo 2004 12.05
To: Voglmaier, Reinhard Erich
Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: RE: Proxycache Documentation


No, upon further investigation I concluded that the code is working as
designed. Please re-read Apurva Kumar's post. You must have the attribute
sets explicitly defined.
http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/200403/msg00083.html

  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
  http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc
  Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org 
> [mailto:owner-openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Voglmaier, 
> Reinhard Erich
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:18 AM
> To: 'Howard Chu'; ando@sys-net.it
> Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
> Subject: RE: Proxycache Documentation
>
>
> Howard,
>
> Should it be fixed just in the release 2.2.7 ?
> I ask coz I have the same problem with the new release. Should I make 
> a bug report ?
>
> Cheers
> Reinhard
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Chu [mailto:hyc@highlandsun.com]
> Sent: venerdì 19 marzo 2004 9.35
> To: Voglmaier, Reinhard Erich; ando@sys-net.it
> Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
> Subject: RE: Proxycache Documentation
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Voglmaier, Reinhard Erich [mailto:rv33100@gsk.com]
>
> > 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 ?
>
> This is a bug. Having taken a look at the code, I see that the logic 
> is reversed. This should be simple to fix...