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

Re: connection pooling in back-ldap?

To: Lawrence Greenfield <leg+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: connection pooling in back-ldap?
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:38:11 -0700
Cc: Howard Chu <hyc@highlandsun.com>, "'Kartik Subbarao'" <subbarao@computer.org>, openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <200210142020.g9EKKdcX005006@smtp6.andrew.cmu.edu>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021014125830.03b8abf8@127.0.0.1> <004a01c273af$8e491360$0e01a8c0@CELLO> <004a01c273af$8e491360$0e01a8c0@CELLO> <5.1.0.14.0.20021014125830.03b8abf8@127.0.0.1>

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.

Kurt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: connection pooling in back-ldap?
  - From: Lawrence Greenfield <leg+@andrew.cmu.edu>

References:
- Re: connection pooling in back-ldap?
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- RE: connection pooling in back-ldap?
  - From: "Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>
- Re: connection pooling in back-ldap?
  - From: Lawrence Greenfield <leg+@andrew.cmu.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: connection pooling in back-ldap?
Next by Date: Re: connection pooling in back-ldap?
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread