Martin Bjorklund wrote:
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.)
IMO, it is simpler for the agent implementer to tag each locked node with just one lock-id, but is not much harder to use a Q of lock-id structs, just a lot more memory. Tool implementation is not the key factor. (That interoperability thing again!) IMO over-lapping locks are OK if they can be easily implemented with the same behavior, and the partial-lock monitoring is complete enough to tell exactly what is locked by each lock-id.
/martin
Andy -- 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/>