Subject: Re: Question on LCUP

From: JUKA AAKULA <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 08:45:09 +0300

Thank you for the answer, Rich

Still a question below:

>> But suppose the client keeps a more dynamic cache in the sense
>> that when the client "gets interested" in a certain entry,
>> the client allways makes a Persistent Search ?
>
>Do you mean the client makes an additional Persistent Search?  I don't
think that would be necessary.  If the client somehow
>becomes interested in an entry outside the scope of the current LCUP
request, the client could simply close the connection
>and issue another LCUP request with a wider scope.

Take an example: there are one million subscribers in a telephone
catalogue. Each subscriber entry is immediately
below the root entry.

A client maintains a cache with a subset of the subscriber entries using
persistent search. Each time a new subscriber is added in the subset the
subscriber entry is searched for in the telephone catalogue using
persistent search. (The subset is say
members of some club.)

Is such use of LCUP fully infeasible ?

Or should the client make a persistent search for all the entries in the
catalogue but skipping those
it's not interested in ?

Jukka

---

From: [email-masked] (Rich Megginson)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 08:19:53 -0600

> Is such use of LCUP fully infeasible ?

No.  In the LCUP model, you would do an LCUP (persistent) search with (for example) a base of o=root and a search filter of
cn=some club.  When a new entry is added, only that new entry is sent back via the persistent search.  If for some reason the
client was disconnected, the client issues an LCUP search the next time it is connected and gets back only the entries which were
added or modified since the last LCUP search.

> catalogue but skipping those

I'm not sure that's necessary, since LCUP should only give you back the entries you are interested in.