[email protected] wrote: >> Full_Name: Javier Sanz >> Version: 2.4.17 >> OS: Debian Linux 5.0 >> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ >> Submission from: (NULL) (80.38.203.12) >> >> >> back_meta and back_ldap should forward server controls that clients use in >> their >> queries to the corresponding external LDAP servers. > > Both back-ldap and back-meta forward controls to the remote servers. > >> For example, the inhability to send controls to external servers currently >> causes that RFC2696 paged results control cannot be used, so it is >> impossible to >> retrieve more results for a query than the page size configured in the >> external >> server, which often is not a big number. > > As far as I can tell, back-ldap supports paged results correctly (just > tested with HEAD and 2.4.23 code). Back-meta does not, and likely will > never do. Please note that while all back-ldap needs to do is blindly > forward control request/response, back-meta would need to separately > handle requests server-side (i.e. when the client requests the control) > and client-side (i.e. when non LDAP-compliant remote servers return the > control while the client did not request it). In between, it would need > to return the page size requested by the client and store the (possibly > paged) response of each remote server. Not worth the effort. The > solution consists in increasing the page size returned by default by > non-LDAP compliant remote servers. > > Perhaps the problem could be split in two: > > 1) allow to configure per-target mandatory use of paged results, with a > specified page size; this means that search requests hitting a specific > target would always add the paged results control to the request, and > handle control responses accordingly. > > 2) handle server-side control response in an overlay that takes care of > storing search results and returning them as appropriate. This would > (maybe inefficiently) handle paged results regardless of the backend that > is actually handling a request. > > Even if only (1) is implemented, clients would no longer need to use pr > when talking to slapd, since back-meta would handle non-LDAP compliant > remote servers that return pr response when the control is not requested. > > I think this ITS should be closed (back-ldap and back-meta do forward > controls); maybe another ITS with a back-meta feature request to handle > non-LDAP compliant remote servers could be filed.
Note that the SSSVLV overlay can handle paged results locally too, thus negating any need for back-ldap/back-meta to forward it to a remote server. Obviously for greatest generality, there needs to be a way to configure which set of controls to pass through, and which to process locally. (Much like back-ldap's option to process the WhoAmI exop...) -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
