Re: LDAP extensions for subtrees.

[Jim Sermersheim <JIMSE@novell.com>]

So these operations are atomic in the sense that a single operation is issued, as opposed to atomic in the sense that the data specified (subtree or filtered subtree) is to be treated as an atomic unit, correct?  

Maybe the word atomic carries more meaning than was intended and could be substituted with a less loaded word.

>>> Bruce Greenblatt <bgreenblatt@dtasi.com> 6/22/99 9:56:04 AM >>>
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

>