Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01

[Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>]

Martin Bjorklund writes:
>In both these cases, the discussion is what happens when the same
>session performs these requests.

Tomasz mentioned session A and session B:

   >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.

And WRT the same session:  I'm not seeing the global/partial lock
overlaps within the same session as something that's worthy of more
words than "DON'T".  The app should know what it's locking, why
it's locking it, and which type of lock it needs.  It shouldn't be
changing it's mind in the middle of the transaction.

>This being said, I think it is ok to not allow any overlaps between
>the global lock and the partial locks, b/c we do not want to modify
>rfc4741.

Cool.

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/>