[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: Transaction/Locking with LDAP
Eric - I had similar thoughts transactions but its the job of ISO CCR to
do commitment which I think DTP used. So X.500 supported by CCR is the
theoretical solution.
However, implementing distributed systems with transaction rollbacks is
tall order - thats to get the products to industry strength and
commercial grade. EG. a DAP stack is about 130kb but a DSA is 100 - 200
times that. CCR as just a protocol set - may be 6-12 man months
development. CCR in a fully robust distributed system (ie. 20 DSAs +)
is 100 times the effort. Just think of all the investment that has gone
into X.500 and LDAP development and still there are a lot of shakey
implementations re distribution, performance, cashing issues, etc. So
distributed CCR on X.500 has to be in my book a $5-10m dollar
development. And that quote is from someone who quotes development costs
for directory developments.
X.500 as an object paradigm is robust. DISP as a transaction/replication
paradigm is robust. The use of commercial RDB back ends with commitment
services and the ability to switch archive the DIB ensures these
paradigms are robustly implemented.
regards alan
PS there are always religious wars in standards groups (IETF, ISO and
ITU) and in fact these wars also happen in religious groups. I think
these wars are:
a) part of what us humans do.
b) applied when engineering debates are not well supported eg. "to
avoid the overheads and complexity of OSI and DAP" = religion... as
these are 130kb. Half of which is produced automatically by an ASN.1
compiler. ie. Manual coding effort for OSI and DAP is 65kb of code.
Manual coding effort for LDAP is 200+kb of code for less functions.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Andersen [SMTP:ERA@FL.DK]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:16 AM
> To: 'ldapext'
> Subject: RE: Transaction/Locking with LDAP
>
> From the very beginning I believed, i.e. back in 1983-84 I believed
> that
> X.500 in stead of ROSE should use Distributed Transaction Processing
> (DTP)
> which was at that time a very well developed protocol based on IBM LU
> 6.2
> and had all the features of two phase commitment and roll backs. It
> would
> therefore not require years, but some added implementation cost, but
> probably not millions of dollars. However, as usual, I was alone. The
> chairman of the ISO Directory group was totally against it. "Directory
> is
> stateless and shall stay that way". We also had our religious wars
> within
> ISO.
>
> Erik Andersen, Consultant, Direct Tel. (+45) 3945 0736, Mobile: (+45)
> 2097
> 1490
> E-mail: era@fl.dk
>
> FISCHER & LORENZ A/S
> Tuborg Parkvej 10, DK-2900 Hellerup, Copenhagen, Denmark
> Tel. (+45) 3945 0700, Fax (+45) 3945 0777, E-mail: fl@fl.dk, Internet:
> http://www.fl.dk
>
> CEN/ISSS Directory Workshop chairman, Internet:
> http://www.cenorm.be/isss/workshop/dir/welcome.htm
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alan Lloyd [SMTP:Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au]
> > Sent: 4. juni 1998 01:14
> > To: ERA@FL.DK
> > Subject: RE: Transaction/Locking with LDAP
> >
> > 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
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ringer, Oded [SMTP:Oded.Ringer@gs.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 1:50 AM
> > > To: 'ietf-ldapext@netscape.com'
> > > Subject: Transaction/Locking with LDAP
> > >
> > > Is there any thought to include transaction management in LDAP ?
> > > -Oded
> > >
> > >
> > > Oded Ringer 212-902-7939
> > > Goldman, Sachs & Co.