Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01

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

"Tomasz_Mikołajczyk" <miksiu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2007 9:53 PM, Mehmet Ersue <m_ersue@yahoo.de> wrote:
> > IMHO:
> > a) A partial lock after a global lock MUST fail.
> > b) A global lock after a partial lock SHOULD be allowed.
> 
> I don't agree with the point a). In the case when a session A wants to
> lock (partial lock) /foo/bar and /foo/baz, it can execute the global
> lock first to protect against the situation, when during partial
> locking /foo/bar another session (B) would lock partially /foo/baz. It
> means that after the following steps:
> 1) global lock
> 2) partial lock of /foo/bar
> 3) partial lock of /foo/baz
> 4) global unlock
> session A keeps lock on /foo/bar and /foo/baz.

This particular use case is actually handled in the current draft by
doing a single operation:
   
  partial-lock(/foo/bar, /foo/baz)



/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/>