|
Here's
a citation on the inevitability of this conflict:
Coan,
B., Oki, B., and Kolodner, E., "Limitations on Database
Availability When Networks Partition, " Proc. 5th Symp. on Principles of
Distributed Computing, Calgary, 1986, pp. 187-194.
(BTW
to others on this list -- this is the one I promised many moons ago -- I just
found a search engine that makes this easy: www.csindex.com)
There is no transactional support in LDAP today. And
the kind you are looking for conflicts with the desire for high availability.
A TP monitor using LDAP as its store would not improve matters -- it wouldn't
function as expected, and at past it would give high consistency at the
expense of availability.
Apologies for the elementary nature of this
question. If there is a more appropriate mailing list to send it to,
please let me know.
Anyhow, I have been looking at the policy
drafts from the IETF (<draft-ietf-policy-framework-00.txt>, for
example) and I have been doing some LDAP-related work for a couple of
months. LDAP, near as I can tell, has no transactional model.
Relationships in network management and policy management/deployment can get
a little hairy. I was wondering if the need for transactional support
in LDAP is felt, or if an architectural decision has been made that any
transactional enforcement is up to the application via a TP monitor or
similar product? Or if I am totally off base and there is some
transactional support mechanism in LDAP of which I am ignorant (wouldn't be
the first time.)
Thanks,
Linda Grimaldi
|