[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-txn-00.txt More ..
There is another view that each operation on the directory server (a
ROSE operation in X.500 ) is bounded and that a rollback facilities
might be added as Operation Undo - this can apply to updates and
replication transfers - This is theory - now its just the detail to work
out !
regards
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Reed [SMTP:ED_REED@novell.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 1:43 AM
> To: Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no; dboreham@netscape.com
> Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com; prasanta@netscape.com;
> Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-txn-00.txt More ..
>
> Harald is right about the need for transaction support in the
> service-to-service management arena. I forgot to include that in my
> previous mailnote. Management of contracts between replicas of a
> portion of the namespace - that is, management of the distributed
> knowledge among multiple updateable replicas - is one such area. NDS
> does retain the special nature of the Master replica as the
> transaction coordinator for operations like subtree moves, splits, and
> joins to be sure all the replicas know the change is taking place, and
> when it's done.
>
> Ed
>
> -------------------
> Ed Reed, Technologist
> Group Technology Office
> Novell, Inc.
> +1 801 861 3320
>
> >>> David Boreham <dboreham@netscape.com> 04/15/1998 09:28:29 >>>
>
>
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > I have not advocated a transaction model for replicas; I think it's
> more
> > useful to base replicas on a "loose consistency" model.
> >
> > Where I think transactions are needed is between DSAs involved in
> > operations like tree renames or transfer of tree responsibility,
> > where a glitch at the wrong time can lead to a permanently
> inconsistent state.
>
> Perhaps a list of operations where transactions
> are considered useful is needed ?
>
> The document mentions two:
>
> (1) maintaining a counter in an entry (eg software
> license count).
> (2) Two entries who's contents need to be kept
> in some strict relationship (eg an entry and its certificate).
>
> Here are two more above.
>
> Anyone have any others to add ?
>
>
>