Re: Returning Partial Results for an operation

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

I'd be happy to co-author an abandon I-D.

The use of an control upon abandon to solicit an
(extended? new?) response would likely not be supported
by an client API.

I believe an extended operation is the best approach.

Kurt




At 06:36 PM 12/22/00 -0700, Roger Harrison wrote:
>Kurt,
> 
>I, too, have been considering the same thing because there are times when it would be very nice to know an abandon has been received and handled. 
> 
>In a conversation I had with Haripriya, I suggested just such a thing, and Haripriya suggested using a control to request a response for an abandon operation. It sounds like Jim wouldn't mind seeing something in this area as well.  Should we write something up? If so, do you have an opinion as to whether we should use a new extended abandon-with-response operation or a control on the current abandon operation?
> 
>Roger
>
>>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 12/20/00 09:35PM >>> 
>At 09:44 PM 12/20/00 -0700, Haripriya S wrote: 
>>Yes but it would then mandate that the server MUST send partial results per entry immediately, and cannot bunch results even if a client wishes so, because the state cannot be conveyed once an abandon is received. 
>
>Abandon semantics also require the server to defer returning 
>return results of operations issues subsequent to the abandon 
>operation until the operation being abandoned has been 
>abandoned or has completed. 
>
>For this reason, I have been considering specifying a new 
>abandon operation which, like the X.500 abandon operation, 
>has a response. 
>
>Kurt