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

Re: Supported RFC's and "features"

To: openldap-software@openldap.org
Subject: Re: Supported RFC's and "features"
From: Marc Chantreux <marc.chantreux@ulpmm.u-strasbg.fr>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:51:54 +0100
Content-disposition: inline
In-reply-to: <7743EC04412860CD732469B1@deus-ex.zimbra.com>
References: <C65F80C878CCF24A9BC19646DE2DCA62C34D69@EXVG.fanniemae.com> <7743EC04412860CD732469B1@deus-ex.zimbra.com>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11)

On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 12:30:09PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>> - RFC 2891 (server side sorting)
>
> Why is this problematic?  Server side sorting is a horrible waste of server 
> CPU that's better served by the client doing sorting how it wants.

well ... i think this feature could be very usefull in certain cases.

Imagine I just want to know what's the max uidNumber used in my directory.
actually, i ask the server to give all the uidNumbers and my client sort
them. isn't it an horrible waste of bandwidth ? 

regards.

mc

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Supported RFC's and "features"
  - From: Dave Horsfall <daveh@coreng.com.au>
- Re: Supported RFC's and "features"
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>

References:
- Supported RFC's and "features"
  - From: "Clowser, Jeff (Contractor)" <jeff_clowser@fanniemae.com>
- Re: Supported RFC's and "features"
  - From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@zimbra.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Supported RFC's and "features"
Next by Date: Re: Supported RFC's and "features"
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread