On Friday 21 November 2008 21:49:30 Howard Chu wrote: > Leif Johansson wrote: > > So I had a talk with the nfsv4 wg today (and on their list earlier). The > > are trying to build AFS-style volume location for NFS using LDAP and I > > think they may have a problem with the LDAP consistency model: i.e > > "eventually consistent" for a couple of their usecases. > > > > I won't go into details unless people particularly care but I think we > > may need an I-D (something for a bof in SF perhaps) describing a control > > which asks for the result of an update operation to be delayed until a > > certain criterion (eg in the form of a compare condition) is fulfilled on > > all "slaves". Implementation details would differ depending on the > > precise way replication is done for that vendor. > > > > Does that sound like something you would > > > > a) barf at > > b) laugh at > > c) ignore > > d) review given that someone wrote it up? > > Sounds like what's really wanted is a distributed transaction. Why not just > call it that? Not really - I don't think they need commit/rollback or the ability to modify multiple entries in a transaction. Cheers Leif
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Ldapext mailing list Ldapext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext