Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Howard Chu wrote:
This was a part of the spec I mis-understood, clearly. It makes a hell
of sense to consider that the sizeLimit is global, ad should be
considered across the multiple paged searches. The funny part is that I
have injected such a counter in the internal structure before asking the
question, I don't know what for, and now, I see the reason. The
reptilian part of my brain knew it ;)
Gotta love that, coding by instinct... ;)
MS AD is broken in this respect (which is particularly pathetic given
that some MS folks co-authored the spec, but so it goes).
I.e., when no control is present, the search result set will be the
smaller of the client's requested size limit, and any administrative
limits configured on the server. With the control present, the total
number of returned entries allowed is still the same, just that they
may be received by the client in smaller groups.
On don't see where is the problem here ...
My paragraph above may have been a bit muddy. In general there's no problem
here.
so in the second case, the client will receive entries in PL sized
groups, until we reach the server limit or the request limit ?
Right.
The problem I was alluding to with MS AD is that when a Paging control is
used, the server's sizeLimit is effectively ignored. MS AD has a default
sizeLimit of 1000 entries, but using Paging you can retrieve as many
1000-entry pages as you want, thus bypassing that limit. That's of course
completely wrong behavior, but that's MS for ya...
That's the funniest part of the job : deal with other's errors when you
already have enough of your own in your plate !
Yeah, keeps things from getting too easy I suppose. ;)
Thanks Howard !
Any time. (Except when I'm in the wilderness without a good network connection
:P
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
