Re: Virtual List View functionality in ADAM and Outlook

From: Dmitri Gavrilov [MSFT] (dmitrig_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 11/04/04 

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:51:10 -0700

Yeah, I know the guy who owns this stuff. But he's in the Office team, too
far away in the hierarchy :)
Valuable suggestion, surely, but no promises.

The general problem with patching Outlook is that they have too many
versions, and it affects too many clients. In most cases, it is easier to
just patch the server (and this is exactly what we did for the recent VLV
fix for AD).

Unfortunately, in this case, I am afraid it is impossible to avoid patching
outlook. I am just hoping Matt can get away with different OUs. 

-- 
Dmitri Gavrilov
SDE, Active Directory Core
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Lee Flight" <lef@le.ac.uk-nospam> wrote in message
news:#puypurwEHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Re: Outlook changes.
>
> I think a QFE for Outlook (looks like EMABLT32.DLL on my machine)
> that allowed a filter to be specified, defaulting to (&(cn=*)(mail=*)),
> in addition to the search base would be a valuable enhancement.
>
> Lee Flight
>
> "Dmitri Gavrilov [MSFT]" <dmitrig@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:%230LM1$pwEHA.3624@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > If people from each base live in a separate OU, then you can get away
with
> > setting up multiple LDAP sources, each with a different search base,
like
> > Lee described. Plus you can have one global list that includes
everybody.
> >
> > If you have people that need to appear in multiple address books, then
we
> > might be able to craft something up for you, using showInAB attribute.
> > However, it will also require changes to Outlook, because it is
currently
> > sends a generic filter (&(cn=*)(mail=*)) for generic LDAP sources. You'd
> > need it to pass a different filter, similar to the one it uses for AD,
> > involving (showInAB=AB-name) clause.
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > Dmitri Gavrilov
> > SDE, Active Directory Core
> >
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> > Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> > http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> >
> > "Matt Totty (LMCO/USAF)" <MattTottyLMCOUSAF@discussions.microsoft.com>
> > wrote
> > in message news:C9C60B82-A063-49C9-AB93-EFB9CAEB576A@microsoft.com...
> >> Thank you gentlemen.
> >>
> >>  Dmitri- we do currently use MIIS to bring all of our entries into ADAM
> > from
> >> multiple AD's. I am trying to OFFLOAD the GAL to ADAM so that each
> > instance
> >> of MIIS (15 severs curently) does not have to worry about crunching
> > through 1
> >> million entries. We currently do a push and pull- and I want to do
pulls
> >> only- to ADAM and have the end user hit ADAM for GAL purposes. In our
> >> case
> > it
> >> greatly reduces a lot of overhead. Overhead from an MIIS point of view
> >> and
> >> also from an AD point of view. Today a million objects- tomorrow
millions
> >> more as the Air Force will have a need to integrate other services-
NAVY,
> >> Army, into their Global. I see this coming and am trying to come up
with
> >> a
> >> solution that is going to keep us from failing. Have you ever
> >> synchronized
> > a
> >> million entries in MIIS? ;)
> >>
> >> Lee- we only pull contact information- we exclude distribution lists.
> >>
> >> So something to consider from a technical standpoint- I do not want to
> > even
> >> go off on a cost and development tanget- is to somehow integrate
features
> >> into Outlook/ADAM that will enable Address Book View functionality. Is
> > this
> >> something that is just too wild to consider? It seems  on a high level
> > that
> >> since ADAM and AD are closely married this would be something that is
at
> >> least achievable from a technical standpoint. I am not of the school
that
> > you
> >> would even want to have a view by base since I can type in a last name
> >> and
> >> have the entries appear. But this is the military and they demand it.
> >>
> >> As far as LDAP instances go- We have close to 108 bases- so that is not
> >> going to be a solution.
> >>
> >> For the tactical untis ( people fighting the wars) in the middle east
and
> >> elsewhere- they are going to love the fact that they can access the GAL
> > via
> >> ADAM.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Lee Flight" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Following from Dmitri, you can change the name of the service that
> >> > appears in the drop-down. I currently have Outlook 2003 running on
> >> > WinXP with three LDAP address books LDAP1,LDAP2 and LDAP3
> >> > in the drop-down, respectively pointing to:
> >> >
> >> >  an ou in an application partition in an ADAM instance
> >> >
> >> >  a container in a different application partition in the same ADAM
> > instance
> >> >
> >> >  an ou in an application partition in a different ADAM instance, this
> > one
> >> >  is ADAMsync'ed from AD
> >> >
> >> > all instances are on the same WinXP box
> >> >
> >> > A couple of other things to think about are:
> >> >
> >> > what objects you will have in the address list, contacts will be fine
> >> > but you will have problems, I think, if you need to handle
Distribution
> >> > Lists that might exist in your Exchange GAL
> >> >
> >> > what credentials that you will be using to bind to  the ADAM
instance,
> >> > I'm presuming that the outloook clients are domain based. I just
> > wondering
> >> > if there is a way of using permissions for the binding user to return
> > the
> >> > appropriate "view" (if you are using restricted views in that way).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Lee Flight
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Dmitri Gavrilov [MSFT]" <dmitrig@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
> >> > message
> >> > news:e2vZQjfwEHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> > > Ah, you are using Outlook. Then your choices are somewhat limited.
> >> > >
> >> > > First of all, you can only have a single "address book" entry per
> >> > > LDAP
> >> > > service in the dropdown. You can certainly point it at ADAM, and it
> > will
> >> > > work just fine (after you apply the QFE and create a subtree-ized
> > index
> >> > > for
> >> > > CN).
> >> > >
> >> > > I guess you can configure multiple LDAP services, pointing to the
> >> > > same
> >> > > ADAM
> >> > > instance, each with a different search base -- this will give you
an
> >> > > illusion of multiple address books. I am not sure if you can
control
> > the
> >> > > name of the service that appears in the drop-down. The other
> > limitation is
> >> > > that you can not have one user belong to multiple "address books",
> > because
> >> > > you can not have it in two different containers at the same time.
> >> > >
> >> > > However, if you just need to support a single GAL, then you can
> > certainly
> >> > > push it into ADAM. Take a look at adamsync (currently in beta),
that
> > will
> >> > > help you to bring data from AD into ADAM and keep it in sync.
> >> > > Alternatively,
> >> > > you can use MIIS to do the syncing. IIFP (MIIS-lite) is free -- it
> > will
> >> > > work
> >> > > for AD-ADAM synchronization.
> >> > >
> >> > > -- 
> >> > > Dmitri Gavrilov
> >> > > SDE, Active Directory Core
> >> > >
> >> > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> >> > > rights.
> >> > > Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified
at
> >> > > http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> >> > >
> >> > > "Matt Totty (LMCO/USAF)"
> >> > > <MattTottyLMCOUSAF@discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> > > wrote
> >> > > in message
news:761F533D-F25D-4077-BE60-82AAEC4DFBF1@microsoft.com...
> >> > >> We need to be able to present the end user with a drop down view
of
> > Air
> >> > > Force
> >> > >> bases using outlook/ADAM. Currently- the user achieves this via an
> >> > > Exchange
> >> > >> address book view based on SMTP address in their respective Active
> >> > >> Directories. If I can somehow do the same thing using
Outlook/ADAM,
> > then
> >> > > the
> >> > >> Air Force can effectivly offload thier Global Address List to
ADAM.
> > There
> >> > > are
> >> > >> multiple reasons why we would like to do this which I can describe
> >> > >> in
> >> > >> more
> >> > >> detail if you wish. But the main point I am trying to make is that
> >> > >> we
> >> > >> need
> >> > > to
> >> > >> achieve a similar end user experience with the end user using ADAM
> >> > >> as
> > he
> >> > >> would by using the AD/Exchange ABV. If we can even come close that
> > would
> >> > > be
> >> > >> outstanding.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> "Dmitri Gavrilov [MSFT]" wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Hmm. ADAM base schema does not include showInAddressBook
> >> > >> > attribute,
> >> > > which
> >> > >> > means all special logic that exists in AD for this attribute
will
> > not
> >> > > work
> >> > >> > (even if you import it). So, you will have to implement your own
> >> > > solution
> >> > >> > based on regular LDAP queries (including VLV, if you need it).
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > If you define your scenario in more detail, we might be able to
> >> > >> > generate
> >> > >> > some ideas.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > -- 
> >> > >> > Dmitri Gavrilov
> >> > >> > SDE, Active Directory Core
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
> >> > >> > no
> >> > > rights.
> >> > >> > Use of included script samples are subject to the terms
specified
> > at
> >> > >> > http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > "Matt Totty (LMCO/USAF)"
> > <MattTottyLMCOUSAF@discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> > > wrote
> >> > >> > in message
> > news:A2ACA407-6E20-4FE1-BF1D-DE99D61A873A@microsoft.com...
> >> > >> > > Thank you - this is outstanding information.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > The last question I have now before I get the patch and begin
> > testing
> >> > > is
> >> > >> > this.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Is there a way to create ABV type views within ADAM? It may be
a
> >> > > stretch,
> >> > >> > > but this is the final piece of the puzzle before I lay out my
> >> > > proposal.
> >> > >> > The
> >> > >> > > end user would like to be able to drill down by AF base
> > level.Thanks
> >> > > guys.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > "Dmitri Gavrilov [MSFT]" wrote:
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > The second bit (contanerized index) is useful for one-level
> >> > >> > > > VLV
> >> > >> > searches.
> >> > >> > > > Basically, it is the index on (parentID + attributeValue).
> >> > >> > > > This
> >> > > index is
> >> > >> > > > useless for subtree searches, the ones that Outlook does for
> >> > >> > > > generic
> >> > >> > LDAP
> >> > >> > > > sources.
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > The new index (subtree-ized index) is on (ancestorID +
> >> > > attributeValue).
> >> > >> > Note
> >> > >> > > > that ancestorID has multiple values, one for each ancestor
of
> > the
> >> > > given
> >> > >> > > > node. This index allows to run subtree searches by fixing
the
> >> > > ancestorID
> >> > >> > to
> >> > >> > > > the ID of the search base, and then using the corresponding
> > index
> >> > > range
> >> > >> > for
> >> > >> > > > VLV window positioning.
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > If there's no index that can be used for VLV, then we
perform
> > the
> >> > >> > complete
> >> > >> > > > search and dump the results into a temp table, then use it
for
> >> > > window
> >> > >> > > > positioning. However, if the search is too large (more than
> > 10000
> >> > >> > entries by
> >> > >> > > > default -- defined by an ldap policy), then we fail with
> >> > >> > > > unavailable
> >> > >> > > > extension error.
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > -- 
> >> > >> > > > Dmitri Gavrilov
> >> > >> > > > SDE, Active Directory Core
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> > confers no
> >> > >> > rights.
> >> > >> > > > Use of included script samples are subject to the terms
> > specified
> >> > >> > > > at
> >> > >> > > > http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > "Lee Flight" <lef@le.ac.uk-nospam> wrote in message
> >> > >> > > > news:#vv5CTMwEHA.3808@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> > >> > > > > What does this kind of index do? I had thought that the
2nd
> > bit
> >> > >> > > > > was for VLV functionality...
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > Thanks
> >> > >> > > > > Lee Flight
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > "Dmitri Gavrilov [MSFT]" <dmitrig@online.microsoft.com>
> >> > >> > > > > wrote
> > in
> >> > >> > message
> >> > >> > > > > news:OF6YQOKwEHA.3624@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> > >> > > > > > The indexing is done in the background. When the index
is
> >> > >> > > > > > built,
> >> > > an
> >> > >> > > > event
> >> > >> > > > > > is
> >> > >> > > > > > logged.
> >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > To create the index, you need to set the 6th bit (64) of
> >> > >> > searchFlags.
> >> > >> > > > > > SchemaMgmt snapin does not know about this bit, so
you'll
> > have
> >> > > to
> >> > >> > use
> >> > >> > > > LDP
> >> > >> > > > > > or
> >> > >> > > > > > ADSIEdit or script it.
> >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > -- 
> >> > >> > > > > > Dmitri Gavrilov
> >> > >> > > > > > SDE, Active Directory Core
> >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> >> > >> > > > > > confers
> >> > > no
> >> > >> > > > > > rights.
> >> > >> > > > > > Use of included script samples are subject to the terms
> >> > > specified at
> >> > >> > > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > "Matt Totty (LMCO/USAF)"
> >> > >> > <MattTottyLMCOUSAF@discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> > >> > > > > > wrote
> >> > >> > > > > > in message
> >> > >> > news:B007DE46-306A-49BB-BC9B-BCC177A883B8@microsoft.com...
> >> > >> > > > > >> Do you have to stop and restart ADAM for the index to
> >> > >> > > > > >> take
> >> > > effect?
> >> > >> > > > > >> Is there a way to monitor the indexing or does it just
> > crunch
> >> > > along
> >> > >> > in
> >> > >> > > > > >> the
> >> > >> > > > > >> background?
> >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> "Dmitri Gavrilov [MSFT]" wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > There's a hotfix that enables VLV functionality in
> >> > >> > > > > >> > ADAM.
> > Get
> >> > >> > 838474
> >> > >> > > > or
> >> > >> > > > > >> > a
> >> > >> > > > > >> > later hotfix (e.g. 840901). Note you will need to
> >> > >> > > > > >> > create
> > a
> >> > > new
> >> > >> > index
> >> > >> > > > > >> > (subtree-ized index on cn attribute).
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > -- 
> >> > >> > > > > >> > Dmitri Gavrilov
> >> > >> > > > > >> > SDE, Active Directory Core
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > and
> >> > > confers
> >> > >> > no
> >> > >> > > > > > rights.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > Use of included script samples are subject to the
terms
> >> > > specified
> >> > >> > at
> >> > >> > > > > >> > http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > "Matt Totty (LMCO/USAF)" <Matt Totty
> >> > >> > > > > > (LMCO/USAF)@discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote in message
> >> > >> > > > > >
news:B06762D3-1114-46C6-8D84-1F55BDF229AC@microsoft.com...
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > I have an ADAM instance with 800-900K objects.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > It serves as the LDAP repository for all of our
> > connected
> >> > > MIIS
> >> > >> > > > > > servers.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > What we have found is that it is very difficult at
> > best to
> >> > >> > perform
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > any
> >> > >> > > > > >> > type
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > of bulk operation on an MIIS server with a million
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > objects.
> >> > >> > It's a
> >> > >> > > > > >> > management
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > nightmare.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > We are primarily using MIIS as a GAL
synchronization
> >> > > mechanism
> >> > >> > and
> >> > >> > > > > > plan to
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > use it for workflow provisioning type scenarios in
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > the
> >> > > future.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > To alleviate the GAL issue and a host of others, I
> > thought
> >> > > it
> >> > >> > would
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > be
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > interesting to experiment connecting directly from
a
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > client
> >> > > to
> >> > >> > an
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > ADAM
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > instance with all of the objects.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > To make this solution work, I need a smiliar look
and
> > feel
> >> > > as
> >> > >> > users
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > currently get  with their AD/Exchange GAL
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > implementati
> > ons.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > I have noticed that the virtual list view
> > fucntionality
> >> > > doesn
> >> > >> > not
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > work
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > properly when connecting to ADAM. Every time I
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > connect
> > I
> >> > > get an
> >> > >> > > > > >> > unavailable
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > critical extension error.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > Are there any plans to integrate the outlook client
> > closer
> >> > > with
> >> > >> > > > ADAM
> >> > >> > > > > > and
> >> > >> > > > > >> > to
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > include the VLV fucntionality to support this
number
> > of
> >> > > users?
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > There are third party tools and directories that we
> > can
> >> > > also
> >> > >> > play
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > with
> >> > >> > > > > > to
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > get this solution to work- and we have proven one
> > already.
> >> > > But
> >> > >> > > > things
> >> > >> > > > > >> > would
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > be much simpler if they ran "out of the box". Any
> > opinions
> >> > > or
> >> > >> > > > > > direction is
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > appreciated.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Virtual List View functionality in ADAM and Outlook
    ... All the MIIS experts seem ... > Dmitri- we do currently use MIIS to bring all of our entries into ADAM ... >> an ou in an application partition in a different ADAM instance, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
  • Re: Sorting ADAM-Queries in Outlook
    ... ADAM can output its data in many different ways, however your problem is getting Outlook to request it in the way you want it. ... We’d like to somehow show the entries in the address book ordered by givenname, sn or displayName, which in our case is composed of givenname and sn. ... I assume the problem you are having is that the sort fails. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
  • Re: Virtual List View functionality in ADAM and Outlook
    ... Dmitri- we do currently use MIIS to bring all of our entries into ADAM from ... > a container in a different application partition in the same ADAM instance ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
  • Re: Virtual List View functionality in ADAM and Outlook
    ... Dmitri- we do currently use MIIS to bring all of our entries into ADAM from ... > a container in a different application partition in the same ADAM instance ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
  • Re: Virtual List View functionality in ADAM and Outlook
    ... What's the reason they would want to know the ... Outlook for users that need to find all users on a base? ... The reason to check out the ADAM ideas are to scale to the millions without ... > setting up multiple LDAP sources, each with a different search base, like ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
Loading