Date:Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:37:10 -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"
Yes, we agreed that it was relative time, not absolute. But, could we make
that idle time? If the result set continues to be active, then it shouldn't
go away. Yes, I know that I could send a new timeout with each reference,
but what's the need? I'd rather tell the client once, when the result set
is created.
Ralph
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Dovey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 4:15 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: TTL
>
>
> 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
>
