Re: LDAP Transactions RFC alignment

[masarati@aero.polimi.it]

> Daniel Otero wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'm interested in implementing LDAP Transactions as specified in RFC
>> 5805.
>> I've checked there is something implemented in the client side, slapd
>> and
>> back-bdb dated in 2006, as the RFC is of March 2010 I would like to know
>> how
>> aligned is the current implementation in branch 2.4 with regards the RFC
>> 5805.
>> I also use the back-meta to proxy to remote LDAP servers, AFAIK
>> currently
>> there is no support for LDAP transactions in back-meta. Is there any
>> plan to
>> extend the back-meta with support for LDAP transactions?
>> Regards
>> /Dani
>
> I don't believe the RFC has changed much since the last draft. Transaction
> support in slapd was never completed, the code in back-bdb is simply
> stubs.

Back-meta may need significant work to fully support RFC 5805.  Arbitrary
extops should be already fine; I need to check, but either arbitrary
controls in requests are already forwarded, or adding them should be
straightforward.  I fear supporting the Aborted Transaction Notice
unsolicited response may be a little bit tricky.  In any case, I think the
amount of work required by back-meta is not comparable to that required by
back-bdb/hdb, and I wouldn't start working at back-meta (I'd rather start
working at back-ldap first) before RFC 5805 is supported by back-bdb.

p.