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

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...