On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]>wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote: > >> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 5:29 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> >> >>> Howard Chu wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> while applying Kiran's patch for new system index, I found that we >>>>> should fix some inconsistency. We have what we name 'Existance' index, >>>>> which is the 'Presence' index. >>>>> >>>>> First, we should get rid of the 'existance' name, and replace it by >>>>> 'existence'. >>>>> >>>>> Second, we should keep only one of the 'existence' or 'presence'. >>>>> Unless >>>>> I'm totally wrong, they are just the same. The question is which one >>>>> should we keep ? I would prefer keeping 'existence' rather than >>>>> presence, because it's more explicit. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> "Presence" has established history in the protocol specs... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >>> As I replied to this mail in my response to your mail about the EntryCSN >>> (I'm a bit confused ...) : >>> - let's remove the exist[ae]nce and replace it by 'presence' (and not >>> presance ;) >>> - let's keep using a BTree for all those guys (UUID and entryCSN). We >>> will >>> have to find time to experiment how many micro-seconds we may spare by >>> using >>> a HTree on UUID later ;) >>> >>> >>> >> >> None of this context makes sense to me here Emm. >> >> > > Can you be a bit more explicit, Alex ? > I guess you crossed the content of two separate threads here. I first saw all this existence and presence conversation then this CSN and UUID attribute stuff. It confused me a bit until I read the other threads. -- Alex Karasulu My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/ Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org
