Hi Christian, thanks for pointing me to the bug entry.
And, you are right. I always find me thinking in the enterprise area and forget about all this gsm/umts low band stuff. For this your are perfectly right, that amount of data must be limited. But, this is a standard problem so solve, which is called filtering and data windowing. With such solutions, which are implemented in lots of DB clients for example, there must always be obvious for the user how the structure is (headers for the data displayed), where to filter (fields for filtering the data) and were to move the window (record x of X, next n, previos n, first, last, etc.). This principle should be followed for all such components (here address book). Best regards, Matt Am 28.08.2012 16:08, schrieb Christian Mack: > On 2012-08-26 21:17, Buddy Butterfly wrote: >> >> Am 24.08.2012 13:51, schrieb Christian Mack: >>> Hello Gábor Szittner >>> >>> On 2012-08-24 12:55, Gábor Szittner wrote: >>>> On 2012.08.24., at 12:29, Christian Mack <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 2012-08-24 09:28, Gábor Szittner wrote: >>>>>> From FAQ: "The entries of a shared addressbook are not displayed by >>>>>> default as they are connected to a LDAP directory which can have >>>>>> thousands of entries." I have only 60-70 entries. I dont find any >>>>>> settings, how could I change that default behavior? Or any other >>>>>> suggested solution to have shared address book? (for example sync to >>>>>> mysql backend) >>>>>> >>>>> You can currently not change this behaviour. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> BTW >>>>> This is also relevant for data privacy protection laws at least in >>>>> Germany. >>>>> >>>> Thanks for your answer. I wanna make global address book, what is >>>> read-only, contain all workers, and visible in outlook. The last is the >>>> hardest. >>>> I try with carddav, outlook could sync via iCal4OL, but I dont find any >>>> solution to make a global shared address book, I'm giving up. >>>> >>>> I dont understand what would change the data privacy, you can list all >>>> ldap entries with search "." already. >>>> >>> No, you can not. >>> There is a limit set via "SOGoLDAPQueryLimit" per domain (or complete >>> system). This limits the maximum hits retrieved from LDAP for every search. >>> On our server this is set to 25 (we have more than 14000 users). >>> >> this behavior should definitely be configurable! >> 14000 entries are nothing nowadays for DBs. We handle millions of >> production values >> in DBs. Where is the difference in having 14000 entries in relational DB >> or LDAP >> (ok, LDAP is more annoying to handle ;-)? >> > It is not a limitation of LDAP or DB that bothers me. > You have to handle these big datasets on the client too, and you have to > transfer them. > Keep in mind that pictures are part of the address data, not only some > numbers or small text fields. > > And you have to keep it synchronized, as we have several dozen changes > per day. > Think at a user with a notebook on a slow GSM-Data connection. > Think at a user using smart phones with limited RAM and flash drive > capacity. > >> Does SoGo only run in Germany such that it is enforced by law? >> > No, definitely not. > It's a canadian product, used world wide. > And therefore tries to help everyone to be able to enforce local laws. > > Laws are only one additional aspect of this functionality. > > >> I definitely vote for this setting being configurable! >> > As I said, it is configurable via "SOGoLDAPQueryLimit". > You can set it to a very big number. > > What you _not_ will get is displaying of all addresses without searching > though. > > This you only can get by sponsoring bug #438 > http://www.sogo.nu/bugs/view.php?id=438 > Which should be implemented through a configuration option. > > > Kind regards, > Christian Mack > -- [email protected] https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists
