Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01

[Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>]

"=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Tomasz_Miko=B3ajczyk?=" writes:
>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.

Agree.

>> b) A global lock after a partial lock SHOULD be allowed.

Disagree.

A global lock means that I own the store and can do whatever I want
with it.  I can perform my work knowing that no one else will change
the config during the lifetime of my lock.  If you give me a lock
after giving someone else a lock, then we _both_ think we are safe
(which is bad), and I think I can completely change the entire
config (which is either not true or the other guy is busted).  Bad
news all around.  The global lock must trump all partial locks, so
a global lock after a partial lock MUST NOT 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.

Is this a real-world use case?  Why would anyone do this?  This
isn't an scenario worth our discussion.  If you get the global lock,
you have no further need of partial locks.

Thanks,
 Phil

--
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/>