directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <>
Subject Re: Question about JDBM key/value replacement
Date Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:29:25 GMT
Le 4/27/12 8:39 PM, Alex Karasulu a écrit :
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Selcuk AYA<>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny<>
>> wrote:
>>> What also would be the impact on the current code, assuming that we
>> update
>>> many elements on the RdnIndex, so that the optimistic locking scheme
>> keeps
>>> working ?
>> You know this better. If trying to maintain optimistic locking
>> adversely affects searches and we are OK with outstanding RW txn(this
>> includes all the operations in the interceptor chain in case of a
>> add/delete/modify), then we should get rid of optimistic locking.
> IMO I don't think we should get rid of optimistic locking.
That's an interesting decision to make...

It's pretty obvious that OCC is the way to go when we have low data 
contention, and this is excactly the case for a LDAP server. Being 
allowed to process more than one update at a time, and with a low risk 
to see a collision, that's a clear plus in this context.

Now, the question is the added complexity of an OCC solution, compared 
with a simple global lock over modification, assuming that we have a 
limited time frame to implement the full OCC system.

Typically, as the server code continue to evolve fast, the longer we 
wait to implement a valid solution on trunk, the more likely we wll have 
some huge problems to merge.

I stress out the fact that we are not facing a technical issue here, but 
more a roadmap issue.

Emmanuel Lécharny

View raw message