[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: Architecure Draft [Transactions]
Alan - I guess I'm not familiar with the version of DISP which propagates
transactions in-tact, or the object-level (or is it attribute-level?) locking
primatives which extend DAP to make them safe. Do you have a pointer?
We haven't solved or addressed them here, because we're not aware
of what the system must do to support them. The requirements document
for transactions will no doubt provide us insight.
As we said, we've not gone out of our way to obstruct replication of
transactions, but neither have we attempted to specify how to do them.
There may very well need to be a "different" mechanism to support
distribution of transactions through a distributed directory environment,
and we have attempted, with the ReplicationMechanismOID on the
replicaAgreement object, to leave room for future innovation.
Ed Reed, Technologist
+1 801 861 3320
>>> Alan Lloyd <Alan.Lloyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 08/20/1998 19:23:02 >>>
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
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.
> -----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.