Re: RFC2589 implementation

["Pierangelo Masarati" <ando@sys-net.it>]

> In regards to replication, I suggest that the master produce
> replication events for the deletes and the slaves simply
> act upon these events.  Aside from allowing the use
> non-dynamic-entry-aware slaves, it prevents replication
> errors caused by dynamic v. replication event ordering.

I considered that possibility, but I didn't choose that way because if the
master crashes the dynamic objects on the slave will never expire. 
Another point is that currently when the master shutdowns cleanly, it
deletes all the dynamic objects; if replica dynamic entry deletion is
based on replication, dynamic objects would be prematurely deleted on all
slaves even if only the master was stopped.  I think we can handle this,
though; but in any case slaves must be able to account for dynamic object
expiration on their own; or simply, we shouldn't bother too much about
consistency of replicted dynamic objects.

p.



Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
Responsabile Open Solution
OpenLDAP Core Team

SysNet s.n.c.
Via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
http://www.sys-net.it
------------------------------------------
Office:   +39.02.23998309          
Mobile:   +39.333.4963172
Email:    pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it
------------------------------------------