RE: LDAP extensions for subtrees.

["Salter, Thomas A" <Thomas.Salter@unisys.com>]

If it's atomic, then it must be the server that makes it atomic.  In this
case atomic should mean that either all of the entries in the subtree are
deleted, or none of them are.  I don't what "atomic from the client
perspective" is supposed to mean.

Note that there is another informational draft for a delete subtree that
does not claim to be atomic, but rather only that entries are deleted
starting with the leaf-most entries and working toward the base.  It is
possible for this delete subtree to terminate with an error after deleting
some, but not all of the entries in the subtree.  See
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-armijo-ldap-treedelete-00.txt.



 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Bruce Greenblatt [mailto:bgreenblatt@dtasi.com]
 > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 11:55 AM
 > To: dboreham@netscape.com
 > Cc: John Merrells; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
 > Subject: Re: LDAP extensions for subtrees.
 > 
 > 
 > At 08:19 AM 6/22/99 -0700, David Boreham wrote:
 > >
 > >
 > >Bruce Greenblatt wrote:
 > >
 > >> Thanks for the feedback.  This intention of the draft is 
 > that the SOS
 > >> operations are to have the same end result as if the LDAP 
 > client had
 > >> submitted a stream of standard LDAP operations.  So, you 
 > can't delete
 > >
 > >Isn't this at odds with the requirement that the
 > >tree operation be atomic ?
 > 
 > I don't think so.  The operation is just atomic from the client
 > perspective.  It is up to the server to make sure that the 
 > result is correct.
 > 
 > >A client submitting a stream of deletes can
 > >see one fail half way through the sequence.
 > >
 > >
 > 
 > Only if the client submits each operation synchronously, and 
 > waits for the
 > result.  Since the operation can fail for any number of 
 > reasons, not just
 > access control.  If the client wants to delete an entire 
 > container, why
 > should it have to search the subtree, retrieve all of the 
 > entries, and then
 > delete them individually?  This make very little logical sense to me.
 > 
 > Bruce
 > 
 > >
 >