Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01

[Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>]

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
> If you change the way global locks work, then RFC 4741 needs to be
> obsoleted and a new RFC published to replace it.

I agree that we should not change RFC 4741 b/c of this.

> The WG decided way back when <lock> was designed that it
> is usually a bug when a session locks the same thing twice,
> so the text above forces the agent to grant and release a lock
> just once per lock usage.
> 
> This 'feature' implies over-lapping partial locks, which seems complicated,
> and not as likely to be inter-operable as non-overlapping partial locks,
> granted and released once per usage.

That was my initial thought as well.  But then a reviewer of the draft
commented that there is a use case for allowing overlapping partial
locks, and that is modular code at the manager.  Suppose you write a
routine that grabs a lock of /foo/bar/baz, does something and then
releases the lock.  Later, you might call this routine from code that
already have /foo/bar locked (or /foo/bar/baz/xxx/yyy).  Thus one can
argue that the code on the manager will get more complicated if we
don't allow overlapping locks.

I will also argue that the code in the agent does not necessarily
become more complicated with overlapping locks (we have implemented
overlapping locks actually).  But maybe that wasn't your point.



/martin

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>