Re: LCUP and PSearch on Sync-And-Persist

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:

> There are many clients which need to know they are 'in sync'.
> I note that this is not just after the initial 'sync up' phase,
> but subsequently.  Also, there are cases where the server
> needs to update the cookie without sending an update (in the
> 'persist' phase.
>
> I suggest that we add a 'in sync' notification to LCUP.  Basically,
> just a (intermediate) response PDU which says "you're in sync"
> and, OPTIONALLY, provides a new cookie.
>
> The server should send one when it has sent all changes necessary
> to 'sync' the client.  The server may send them subsequently to
> again notify the client it is 'in sync'.

But what exactly does 'sync' mean?  Does this mean 'all changes between the time I last connected and the time I connected for this
session'?  Because changes may come in to the server during the sync phase.  What should happen to these changes?  Or should those
entries be included?  What if the server is under a heavy update load and never gets to the end of the sync phase?

>
>
> Kurt
>
> At 08:16 AM 2002-04-04, Rich Megginson wrote:
> >Mark C Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Timothy Hahn wrote:
> >>  >
> >> > What about a client that wants to "hold off" on handling search requests
> >> > until it knows that its
> >> > information is "close" to what is held in the server?  "close" being
> >> > defined as the "synchronization"
> >> > part being done and only "updates" will be sent from here forward.
> >>
> >> I think this may be a valid requirement for LCUP. With Persistent
> >> Search, a client can tell where the stream of changes begins, but only
> >> after the first change is received (by looking for the presence of an
> >> entryChangeControl in the SearchResultEntry PDU).
> >
> >Do we need to have the sync phase be completely finished before the persistent phase begins?  Or is it merely enough to know that
> >a returned entry is from the sync phase or the persistent phase?  For the latter, it would be easy to add another field to the
> >response control.  For the former, that would be much harder for server implementors to guarantee some sort of order I think.
> >What is the requirement?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> -Mark Smith
> >>   Netscape