Print

Print


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
>