[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Misuse of the term "association" in [Protocol]
At 09:19 AM 10/5/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>At 07:45 AM 10/5/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>>>The 4.6 text:
>>>>> If the association changes or the connection fails,
>>>>> whether the modification occurred or not is indeterminate.
>>>>> If the LDAP exchange is terminated, or the Modify operation
>>>>> is abandoned due to subsequent operation which requires all
>>>>> outstanding operations to be abandoned (e.g., the Bind
>>>>> operation), whether the modification completed successfully
>>>>> or not is indeterminate.
>>>Why the "due to..." part - doesn't the same apply to an operation
>>>abandoned by the abandon operation?
>> Yes, but it doesn't necessarily apply to the operations
>> otherwise abandoned (for instance, by the cancel operation).
>> The original sentence was intended only to cover two cases,
>> re-bind and connection termination. The other case (abandon
>> operation) is separately handled. The new text does the same.
>Do we need this sentence at all? It is mentioned under Abandon,
>Operation and LDAP Exchange Relationship etc, and it is not mentioned
>in the sections for the other update operations.
I have no problem with removing this sentence.
>The same goes for the preceding sentence:
> Due to the requirement
> for atomicity in applying the list of modifications in the Modify
> Request, the client may expect that no modifications of the DIT have
> been performed if the Modify Response received indicates any sort of
> error, and that all requested modifications have been performed if
> the Modify Response indicates successful completion of the Modify
>Though it's useful to keep a reminder that the operation is atomic and
>will either fail or complete successfully, since its LDAPMessage "looks
>like" a series of modifications.
A modify request expresses a sequence of modifications which
are be applied atomically. I think reminding developers of
this is important.