[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01

To: bwijnen@alcatel-lucent.com
Subject: Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:51:21 +0100 (CET)
Cc: phil@juniper.net, miksiu@gmail.com, netconf@ops.ietf.org, m_ersue@yahoo.de
In-reply-to: <D4D321F6118846429CD792F0B5AF471F7E5D5E@DEEXC1U02.de.lucent.com>
References: <200712131328.lBDDSYOI063360@idle.juniper.net> <20071213.150116.191929922.mbj@tail-f.com> <D4D321F6118846429CD792F0B5AF471F7E5D5E@DEEXC1U02.de.lucent.com>

Hi,

"WIJNEN, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> A more compelling erason for me is: KISS
> i.e. no overlaping locks. Period.

Simple for who?  I would argue that it's not necessarily simpler on
the agent implementation, and maybe even more difficult on the manager
implementation (see my earlier posting in this thread.)

/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/>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01
  - From: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>

References:
- Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01
  - From: Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>
- Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01
  - From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
- RE: Comments on Partial Locking -01
  - From: "WIJNEN, Bert \(Bert\)" <bwijnen@alcatel-lucent.com>

Prev by Date: Re: partial lock access rights
Next by Date: when to use special <get> RPC methods
Previous by thread: RE: Comments on Partial Locking -01
Next by thread: Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread