directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: A control for enabling/disabling dynamic schema check ?
Date Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:21:28 GMT
Hey Pierre not ignoring you but processing backlog and trying to finish up
on presentations.  Will
return to this one soon.  For the time being is this needed before 1.5.1release?

Alex

On 8/20/07, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa@marcelot.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Devs,
>
> I'm returning on this subject as the Online Schema Editor is almost
> complete.
>
> I still need to figure out how to integrate the plugin with the
> Connections Plugin Stefan S. is working on and also how to send the schema
> back to the server (which is the subject of this thread).
>
> I was wondering, as you know the core of ADS better than I do, what is the
> best solution.
> A control ?  A stored procedure ? Another system ?
> If you could help me find out this. ;)
>
> Thanks,
>
> P-A
>
> On 6/12/07, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa@marcelot.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/12/07, Alex Karasulu < akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/12/07, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot < pa@marcelot.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > >
> > > > I think you need to make the server only writable by the current
> > > > > session using the
> > > > > control to prevent other clients from making inconsistent updates.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Exactly. That's why I wanted to use a control. To do a "per
> > > > request" disabling feature. Schema check will always be activated unless
the
> > > > control is present in the request.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually I don't think you can use a control and I want to clarify the
> > > required
> > > behavior. First off you need to use an extended request to frame
> > > multiple
> > > add requests.  It's not so much a control since you have to perform
> > > multiple
> > > adds while having the schema checking disabled.  See if any schema
> > > check
> > > were to occur before the set of operations are completed the schema
> > > subsystem
> > > will be in an inconsistent state.  Hence no write operations can
> > > occur  by any
> > > other client session during that frame.  Here's what it would look
> > > like:
> > >
> > > 1). Send Disable Schema Checks Extended Request
> > > 2). Receive Extended Response (yes or no)
> > >      - if yes we can begin and all other client sessions cannot do
> > > add/modify/modifyDN ops
> > >      - if no then we cannot begin: scheme checking has not been
> > > disabled and process ends
> > > 3). Sequence of N Add Request/Response Pairs w/ Schema Disabled
> > > 4). Send Enable Schema Checks Extended Request
> > > 5). Receive Extended Response
> > >
> > > So we cannot use a control for this because a series of add requests
> > > are required.  But
> > > and extended operation is ideal.  This btw is how LDAP transactions
> > > and other bulk
> > > operation framing mechanisms in some draft specifications work.
> > >
> >
> > The process seems very great. :D
> >
> > The danger of this is that the schema could be inconsistent and you
> > > don't have rollback
> > > capabilities since we don't have transactions.  I wish we had
> > > transaction support since
> > > this is an ideal use case for it.
> > >
> >
> > If the extended Response (#5) can give us the result of the schema check
> > (is the schema integrity ok or not), then I can imagine a process where
> > before updating the schema in the DIT, we store a backup copy of it (the
> > unmodified working schema) that we can restore if something goes wrong.
> >
> >  Also it's a good idea to add parameters into the schema service and the
> > > > > configuration
> > > > > that could control this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Overall it's a good idea to be able to control the server in this
> > > > > fashion however it does
> > > > > not come without risk.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I'm really aware of that. That's why a complete schema
> > > > integrity checker will be built in the Dynamic Schema Editor, to prevent
> > > > putting in the server a wrong schema configuration that could leave it
in a
> > > > unstable state.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I see but would it not just be easier to construct a dependency graph
> > > and do a depth
> > > first traversal that adds leaf nodes without dependencies first then
> > > working your way
> > > up the dependency tree.  This would prevent the need to have to
> > > implement such a
> > > complex feature.  I'm fine with implementing the feature but it's
> > > going to take more
> > > effort than using this client side tactic.  There is some code similar
> > > to this in the
> > > maven plugin which loads the pre-fabricated schema partition during
> > > the build.
> > >
> >
> > Ok thanks, I'm going to take a look at that. But I fear the situation in
> > the Dynamic Schema Editor is even more complicated, since we have to deal
> > with adding new elements, but also updating and deleting ones. Those three
> > operations could come to a scheduling nightmare... I need to continue
> > examine the different use-cases...
> >
> >  If you can write code to actually push schema into ou=schema
> > > > > properly in the order of dependency leaves first then this would
> > > > > be a easier task for
> > > > > you than writing the control.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was actually thinking of writing some kind of "Scheduler" to
> > > > perform request in a certain order, but it is really really painful.
> > > > Let's say for example, a user has entered a wrong OID for an
> > > > attribute type. He changes it in the plugin and pushes back the schema
> > > > configuration in the server. In order to do that, with schema check
> > > > activated, the plugin will need to:
> > > > - first, find all nodes (attribute types and object classes) that
> > > > depend on this attribute type
> > > > - second, remove all these nodes
> > > > - third, delete the entry corresponding to the attribute type with
> > > > the wrong OID
> > > > - forth, insert the new attribute type with the correct OID
> > > > - fifth, re-insert the removed nodes
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes I see this is really painful.  :(.  You basically need to rebuild
> > > all the schema objects
> > > that depend on the schema entity you're changing.
> > >
> > > What about adding the functionality to the schema subsystem to rename
> > > an object and
> > > update the dependent entities that refer to it?  This would solve this
> > > particular problem
> > > which I think is the biggest one of all.  Other use cases like making
> > > a change to the
> > > characteristics of the AT or the OC besides the OID can be made
> > > without having to take
> > > these painful measures.
> > >
> >
> > OID and names (aliases) are required, since they are used in the
> > definition of the other elements.
> >
> > I'm trying to find alternatives for this because this schema disabling
> > > functionality and it's
> > > impact to the server will not be trivial.  Perhaps this will be much
> > > harder to implement
> > > then to build a smart rename function into the schema subsystem.
> > >
> >
> > I understand that. I'm also looking for the easiest solution for
> > everyone, on the server and the client side.
> >
> > I can't imagine what it will be when there will be dozens of
> > > > modifications to commit... :(
> > > >
> > > > This is one of the examples that made me think about having the
> > > > ability to deactivate the check on the schema.
> > > > If this kind of mechanism could exist, committing the change would
> > > > be easier:
> > > > - first, delete the entry corresponding to the attribute type with
> > > > the wrong OID
> > > > - second, insert the new attribute type with the correct OID
> > > > And we're done...
> > > >
> > > > I was thinking of a control, to be able to choose whether or not
> > > > disabling the schema check on a 'per request' basis, but if it easier
to
> > > > implement using a stored procedure, or modifying a special "configuration"
> > > > entry value, it's not a problem for me...
> > > > I don't know the inside of the server enough to see what costs
> > > > more...
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah you're onto something with the use of a stored procedure.
> > > Perhaps we
> > > can combine some tactics.  Just thinking out loud here but we can have
> > > a
> > > cascade modify control.  Say you rename the OID or alias of a schema
> > > entity
> > > and you want the schema system to recursively update the dependencies
> > > like a cascade operation.  The schema subsystem can take this into
> > > account.
> > >
> > > We can even use this control in multiple places.  Like for example to
> > > do cascade
> > > deletes of schema elements.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds great.
> >
> > P-A M.
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message