[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: [Fwd: [ldap] LDAP Transactions]
I think the issue is that LDAP and X.500 assume the Object as the
atomicity point . And if the transaction concept in LDAP has to be
extended over distributed servers - that support (eg.) a Prune and Graft
capability, then atomicity and recource locking/release issues get quite
complex (if over multiple objects over multiple servers) . ISOs CCR
(Iso IEC 9804 and 9805) provided such interchanges - perhaps these
documents could be reviewed and their service semantics reviewed in the
light of reading from one LDAP server and writing a subtree of entries
across 2 or more recipient servers. ie. with a singlr server -
transaction concepts are easy, but multiple - distributed servers its
more difficult. And if one is only focussing on one server - without
distribution capabilities, one might as well SQL type commit procedures.
regards alan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larson, Timothy J.
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 2:47 AM
> To: JR Heisey
> Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ldap] LDAP Transactions]
>
> From Mark Wahl's notes on the 44th IETF LDAPEXT working group session:
>
> > 2.3 Transactions
> >
> > Earlier in the life of the LDAPEXT working group there were
> discussions on the use transactions in
> > LDAP. These are primarily intended not in the 'database' sense with
> the ASID properties, but just as a
> > way of grouping DIT modification operations as a unit.
> >
> > There was a short discussion on the scope of the problem. There have
> not been many different
> > deployments so far; Hitachi had implemented a specification but it
> did not use distributed transactions.
> > Also, the plans in the LDUP working group for replication would
> increase availability of the directory
> > information, but would not permit full transaction semantics to
> necessarily be provided, and might not
> > allow synchronization guarantees to be maintained.
> >
> > Transactions are not on the LDAPEXT charter at present.
>
> For the text of the document, you'll have to go to the ldapext
> archive (it was never placed in the IETF draft repository as near
> as I can tell):
>
> ftp://ftp.innosoft.com/ietf-ldapext/archive.txt
>
> It's a decent method for how to do, as Tim Howes carefully phrased
> it, "groupings of LDAP operations."
>
> It might be good to get it into the draft stream again; it just won't
> be done under ldapext's charter, unless the charter changes (In
> the very least it would need to go in with a different filename).
>
> Tim Larson
> Lucent Technologies
>
> JR Heisey wrote:
> >
> > Thought I post this question to this list too.
> >
> > JR Heisey wrote:
> >
> > > What ever happened to the LDAP transaction extension?
> > > (draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-txn-00.txt)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > --
> > > -
> > > J. R. Heisey
> > >
> > > ---
> > > You are currently subscribed to ldap@umich.edu as:
> [jr.heisey@mediagate.com]
> > > To unsubscribe send email to ldap-request@umich.edu with the word
> UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT of the message.
> >
> > --
> > -
> > J. R. Heisey
> >