Re: Transaction/Locking with LDAP

[Satoshi Kikuchi <s-kikuti@sdl.hitachi.co.jp>]

Alan Lloyd wrote:
> 
> I hope not.
> 
> Otherwise we will need resource locking and transaction recovery
> mechanisms in LDAP and that is somewhat difficult in distributed
> directory systems . It will need this - otherwise the transaction ID
> will just be a cosmetic protocol field.
> 
> Isnt it odd that one can add a few bytes to a protocol field to say
> "transaction ID" and put that on a sheet of paper in 10 minutes.  But to
> make that work in a commercial tested large scale object oriented
> distributed name based transaction system that has true rolback
> integrity it will take years and millions of dollars...
> 
> regards alan
> 

We have discussed directory services with some customers and were made
to recognize realities that some cases, especially mission critical
systems such as EC, couldn't adopt the directory service without
transactions.  Their requirements concentrate for consistency among
multiple updates to the single server.

We thought that our draft could satisfy most requirements even if it
does not address transactions which span more than one server.  It is
complicated to implement the distributed transaction such as TP monitor
though adding the protocol for that isn't so difficult.

It is important to solve technical problems positively and meet users'
expectancy.
Current draft is lacking in a few definitions such as locking,
referral.  It will be revised up soon.

Regards,
Satoshi