[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Transactional ldap


I was wondering if there are people involved in the development of a standard
for transactional ldap operations (not the backend, but the frontend). I
know that the general opinion is that it would be overkill and that there 
are other alternatives, such as using a locking attribute, but I don't
see why we wouldn't implement it. The argument that you need a RDBMS anyway
when you need transactions doesn't hold in my view. Why not combine
excellent read performance with excellent write performance/features?

Even if you don't have a lot of updates or a complicated tree, it's
still a good idea to have transactions protect your RMW cycles. And
if you do have a complex database with a lot of updates, it's almost
impossible to implement a multiple-reader/writer-safe database without it.

We're using a heavily modified back-ldbm (based on 1.2.11) which supports
transactions with BDB 3.3.11 and we noted no significant performance drop,
so we think it's perfectly possible.

Please comment....

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then
beat you with experience.