Thanks, Robert.
I wonder if at least some minimum numbers need to be
specified, to assure interoperability. If a client is developed that uses
'n' number of repeated fields/instances on one server, then will it be
interoperable on other servers? A full discovery mechanism could be
defined, but specifying minimums would at least provide a 'least common
denominator' baseline for compliance.
Rod Wideman
Quantum Corporation
(please disregard the confidentiality statement
below)
Rod,
"Rod Wideman" <Rod.Wideman@quantum.com> wrote on 06/11/2009
01:51:57 AM:
>
> How does a client
determine how many instances of repeatable fields
> or multiple
attributes are supported by a key server for a given
> object or
operation? Presumably different key servers will have
> different
limits.
In the editorial
changes I proposed last week the following item was included:
"11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.14 (Create, Create
Key Pair, Register, Add Attribute): Add a new Result Reason of "Index Out of
Bounds" if the client tries to set more attribute instances than the server
allows."
Note that the client won't
know ahead of time what is the maximum number of instances supported for a given
attribute by a given server: it is expected to be reasonably large so that such
"out of bounds" errors occur only rarely.
In terms of repeatable fields in operation requests and responses, only
the maximum size of a response can be set by the client. So far, servers are
expected to handle all request sizes. Is this acceptable?
Regards,
-Robert
The information contained in this transmission may be confidential. Any disclosure, copying, or further distribution of confidential information is not permitted unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing by Quantum Corporation. Furthermore, Quantum Corporation is not responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the substance of this communication or for any delay in its receipt.