Re: Question on LCUP

JUKA AAKULA wrote:

> 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 ?

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.

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

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

>
>
> Jukka