Correct.

Again, this behaviour stems from the original premise that the ttl model
was for cursoring rather than longer term result set management.

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: 17 January 2003 13:12
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: result set ttls again
> 
> 
> If you don't update the TTL when the set is part of a second 
> search, I assume you also don't update when it's sorted as in 
> both cases a new set is created so there's no way to let the 
> client know the old set has been pinged?
> 
> R
> 
> --
>       ,'/:.          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
>