Date:         Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:14:34 +0100
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Matthew Dovey <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: TTL
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

No - the original model was that you had to do something to get a new TTL
(e.g. ask for the next ten records in which case the server would give you a
result set name/TTL) We did have a debate against absolute vs relative time.
I favoured the former but the general opinion was that we weren't doing
mission critical timing here so the latter was easier and sufficient.

Matthew


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 8:30 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: TTL
> 
> I've always assumed it's a relative time  -- not an absolute time, but not
> an
> idle time either.
> TTL wouldn't be the right thing to call it if it's an idle time, however,
> idle
> time is fine with me (let's just call it "idle time").  --Ray
> 
> "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
> 
> > I've always assumed that the TTL was an idle time, not an absolute time.
> > I'm promising that I'll keep your result set for 300 seconds after the
> last
> > time you've referenced it.  Reference it again and you'll get another
> 300
> > seconds.  Does everyone agree with that?
> >
> > Ralph