Date:         Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:34:14 -0400
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: TTL
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Very elegant!  That comes as close to NOOP as I can imagine.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Dovey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 4:11 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: TTL
>
>
> Or even ask for no records from the result set!
>
> Matthew
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 9:23 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: TTL
> >
> > If it is an idle timeout, then just fetch the first record
> in the result
> > set.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 3:57 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: TTL
> > >
> > >
> > > Is there a no operation that can be done by clients to keep
> > > sessions/resultsets alive? For example I'm in the middle of
> > > some nice set
> > > of queries but get called away to a meeting for 15 minutes.
> > >
> > > Could my client be instructed to artificially keep the
> > > session active by
> > > sending pings that don't require the server to do
> anything apart from
> > > keep the resultsets/session alive?
> > >
> > > See also the NOOP instruction in FTP.
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >       ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
> > >     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
> > >   ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives,
> extension 3142
> > > ,'---/::::::::::.    Twin Cathedrals:  telnet:
> > > liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
> > > ____/:::::::::::::.              WWW:
> > http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
> > I L L U M I N A T I
>