Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-txn-00.txt More ..

[prasanta@netscape.com (Prasanta Behera)]

David Boreham wrote:

> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > Small comment:
> > Might the DSAs use a transaction protocol such as that described in
> > draft-lyon-itp-nodes-07.txt to coordinate the locking between them?
> >
> > The span would go roughly between Client, Server1 and Server2:
> >
> > Client -> Server1: Start transaction
> >        <- OK
> > Client -> Server2: Join transaction
> > Server2 -> Server1 (TIP): Join
> >         <- OK
> > Client <- Server2: OK
> > Client -> both servers: Stuff
> > Client -> Server1: Finished
> > Server1 -> Server2: OK to finish?
> > Client -> Server2: Finished
> > Server2 -> Server1: Yes, I'm OK to finish
> > Server1 -> Server2: Let's do it
> > Server2 -> Server1: OK, it's done
> > Server1 -> Client: OK
> > Server2 -> Client: OK
> >
> > This is fairly standard technology, I believe.
> > It's getting the details right that hurts.
>
> I believe this is a form of 2-phase commit,
> which the document specifically doesn't address.

That sounds right.  Do we expect  directories to have thesame kind of
requirement like the traditional databases ?  The DB
world moved away from 2pc to replication as 2pc  introduces
interesting problems.  That doesn't mean that 2pc are invaluable.
My question is do we see the need for 2 pc for directory application.
It will be nice to have some examples where it will be benifical
(at least it will help me).

With referrals,  2 pc can get messy as we chase servers.
My take would be to keep directories simple.

/prasanta