>
> > Currently the X500 LIST function has not been implemented and I note with
> > disdain that it is not currently proposed to implement this function in V3 since
> > it is argued that a workaround can be acheived via SEARCH. Has anyone tried
> > implementing LIST and actually measured the time differences between these 2
> > mechanisms ?? The answer is YES I have and I believe that the differences are
> > such that in my view it is essential to implement LIST ASAP.
>
> Is it not possible to recognise the special case of SEARCH and
> process it efficiently within the server? If it is, LIST is not
> required in the protocol and the problem becomes a local optimisation
> in the server, not a standardisation one.
same opinion. A server can recognize that a
"search -onelevel -noattributes" is the same as "list" and map it onto the
list interface of the underlying X.500 client library (i.e. ISODE).
There is no need for having LIST in the LDAP protocol.
(I never understood why LIST is in the X.500 protocol ... And, more:
Isn't "read" the same as "search -baseobject"?)
Bye,
Jochen.
------------
Dr. Jochen Keutel currently at: Deutsche Telekom
duerr com-soft IZ Darmstadt
Phone: +49 6151 818 579
e-mail: keutel@u9ytb.iz-darmstadt.telekom.de
100.37805@germanynet.de
X.400 : /C=de/A=dbp/P=telekom400/O=dmst03/OU1=08/S=osys-02
WWW : http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/3454