Re: RE: Architecure Draft [Dont Use Copy]

["Sukanta Ganguly" <SGANGULY@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
   Does that mean the LDAP Server needs to store the information about the copy/replica as some attribute value. First of all why would this be an issue at all. If it pertains to replication then the replication unit decides what needs to be replicated and the source and target of the replication. Why would one need to store information specific to particular attributes breaking down the concept of replication unit per se. I don't see this being a problem even in the transaction operation.

Sukanta Ganguly

>>> "Ed Reed" <ED#032#REED@xxxxxxxxxx> 08/21 9:10 AM >>>
Alan - you are, of course, correct.  A Resolve Name operation which 
does this is certainly indicated as another possible extended operation
for LDAP, which I hope we will get to as we add "full" distributed
behavior to LDAP services and clients.

Ed

-------------------
Ed Reed, Technologist
Novell, Inc.
+1 801 861 3320

>>> Alan Lloyd <Alan.Lloyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 08/20/1998 19:14:12 >>>
John - this means more human configuration and more code for the client
software... than X.500 systems
regards alan

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	John Merrells [SMTP:merrells@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent:	Monday, 10 August 1998 9:09
> To:	Alan Lloyd
> Cc:	'LDUP '
> Subject:	Re: Architecure Draft [Dont Use Copy]
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Lloyd wrote:
> 
> > In x.500 entries can be selected as a copy/replica through the use
> of
> > Dont Use Copy in DAP and this is carried in DSP. This means that
> entries
> > in the DIT need a notion of master or copy indicators.
> 
> Our current thinking is that this bahaviour is up to clients to
> implement.
> Information about the LDAP servers hosting the Naming Context is
> published in sub-entries below the Naming Context. A client that
> demands high consistency would discover the access point for the
> Primary Replica and apply all its operations there.
> 
> John