RE: Architecure Draft [Transactions]

[Alan Lloyd <Alan.Lloyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John - having just returned from a long US/europe trip. and seeing all
the LDAP extensions for:
Persistent searches, Transactions, triggers, signed operations (which
should be signed audit records) and initiating replication processes. I
am concerned that if these extensions applied together by a naughty
client what would an ldap server do. ie if transcation IDs lock
resource, then how does one replicate in, what happens to a ldap server
with persistent searches and triggers if one zaps in 200,k entries in
replication processes.

In addition most of the extensions being added do not work well in a
distributed model. ie to put a transaction state, a trigger state and a
persistent search state accross a distributed system where you do not
know how many servers actually are involved with such a search operation
- all hell will break loose..

But I suppose this is really upto the LDAP server (non X.500 types)
implementors to sort out. All I can do is wish them good luck. - and the
customers that use them.
regards alan



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	John Merrells [SMTP:merrells@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent:	Monday, 10 August 1998 9:05
> To:	Alan Lloyd
> Cc:	'LDUP '
> Subject:	Re: Architecure Draft [Transactions]
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Lloyd wrote:
> 
> >   c) How transactions will be replicated. However, the architecture
> >     should not knowingly prevent or impede them, given the Working
> >     Group's incomplete understanding of the issues at this time.
> >
> > Alan - this one must be defined - otherwise LDUP is not a protocol.
> 
> I agree that once LDAP transactions have been defined they must
> be faithfully replicated by our replication protocol.  However, one of
> our objectives is to avoid tying ourselves to any other work items.
> So, we're attempting to keep transactions in mind, rather than
> demanding that they be defined before we more forward.
> 
> John