Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01

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

Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
> >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.
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well... yes if there will be a lot of partial locks.  But an
implementation can of course always return resource-denied if
necessary.  Note that an application that puts a partial lock on every
leaf in the entire config datastore also use lots of memory...


> Another point of view: when you put complexity in places it will
> never be exercised, the likelihood of bugs increases.  So if the
> amount of code I have to write to handle a broken app is large
> (assuming apps with overlapping locks are likely broken ;^),

I mentioned a possible use case in
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/netconf.2007/msg00708.html

Maybe you'd call it broken.


/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/>