- From: Bruce Cragun <BCragun.ORM2-1.OREM2@novell.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:37:58 -0600
- To: <jdavis@coursenet.com>, <francis@ecal.com>
- Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Concerning Jim's first point about it being just as easy for the client to sort as for the server: I have two objections to that comment. 1. The server will often have indexes that allow it to get a sorted list without having to actually perform a sort. The client won't have this ability. 2. If the server has such indexes, not only can it produce this sorted list faster than the client, but ALL clients can take advantage of this server-sort instead of every client having to come up with their own implementation. >>> John Stracke <francis@ecal.com> 04/13/99 11:31AM >>> Jim Davis wrote: > 1) It's an unreasonable burden on the server. it's just as easy for the > client to sort as for he server to sort, True--either way, you're going to bring down the entire results of PROPFIND. > > (A nice DASL extension might be a way for the client to tell the > >server, "I > >expect to make this query frequently; you might want to keep an index for > it.") > > That's an interesting idea but I hope you won't be offended if I ask to put > it off until the base level of DASL is done. Absolutely. :-) -- /=============================================================\ |John Stracke | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK | |francis@ecal.com|============================================| |Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed | |eCal Corp. | by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch | \=============================================================/
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 1999 15:38:23 UTC