On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <email@example.com>
I have an issue with this operation. The way it works is currently :
1) grab the old entry from the backend immediately (eagerlyPopulateFields in InterceptorChain).
This is done to spare lookups all aver the following interceptors
2) as we go down the chain, do a lots of checks and update, including adding the missing operational attributes (lastModifier, lastModifyDate), and if needed, delete the old RDN from the entry
3) in the backend, call the store.rename() operation which takes 3 parameters :
- DN (the entry DN)
- new RDN (the new name)
- deleteOldRdn flag
Here, I think we have a double problem :
- first we have grabbed the entry just for the purpose of doing some checks, assuming that we will grab it again in the store
Have you confirmed that we in fact grab the entry once again a second time in the store?
- second, we will have to call the modify() operation after the rename has been done, as we have lost the Operationnal attribute update, so the full operation has a double cost (maybe more).
Correct! This is a big issue that may compromise atomicity.
I suggest that we modify the rename() parameters to pass the modified entry instead of doing the modification into the store, because, anyway this is not where the logic should be placed.
Does your analysis show that the two main problems above (atomicity and unnecessary entry lookup) are eradicated? Sorry I don't have the code right in front of me but I trust that if you see this as a solution I am not against changing the rename() method signature to fix this issue.