Transactional ldap

[Marijn Meijles <marijn@bitpit.net>]

Hi,

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....

-- 
Marijn@bitpit.net
---
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then
beat you with experience.