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

[Alan Lloyd <Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au>]

There is another view that each operation on the directory server (a
ROSE operation in X.500 ) is bounded and that a rollback facilities
might be added as Operation Undo - this can apply to updates and
replication transfers - This is theory - now its just the detail to work
out !
regards 

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ed Reed [SMTP:ED_REED@novell.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, April 16, 1998 1:43 AM
> To:	Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no; dboreham@netscape.com
> Cc:	ietf-ldapext@netscape.com; prasanta@netscape.com;
> Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au
> Subject:	Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-txn-00.txt More ..
> 
> Harald is right about the need for transaction support in the
> service-to-service management arena.  I forgot to include that in my
> previous mailnote.  Management of contracts between replicas of a
> portion of the namespace - that is, management of the distributed
> knowledge among multiple updateable replicas - is one such area.  NDS
> does retain the special nature of the Master replica as the
> transaction coordinator for operations like subtree moves, splits, and
> joins to be sure all the replicas know the change is taking place, and
> when it's done.
> 
> Ed
> 
> -------------------
> Ed Reed, Technologist
> Group Technology Office
> Novell, Inc.
> +1 801 861 3320
> 
> >>> David Boreham <dboreham@netscape.com> 04/15/1998 09:28:29 >>>
> 
> 
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> > I have not advocated a transaction model for replicas; I think it's
> more
> > useful to base replicas on a "loose consistency" model.
> >
> > Where I think transactions are needed is between DSAs involved in
> > operations like tree renames or transfer of tree responsibility,
> > where a glitch at the wrong time can lead to a permanently
> inconsistent state.
> 
> Perhaps a list of operations where transactions
> are considered useful is needed ?
> 
> The document mentions two:
> 
> (1) maintaining a counter in an entry (eg software
> license count).
> (2) Two entries who's contents need to be kept
> in some strict relationship (eg an entry and its certificate).
> 
> Here are two more above.
> 
> Anyone have any others to add ?
> 
> 
>