Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?

[Larry Menten <lmenten@lucent.com>]

Eliot Lear wrote:

> Larry Menten wrote:
>
> > I'm not asking for locking.  I'm suggesting that we rework the 
> > approach so that locking
> > is less important.
> If you can explain how you can make a change such that you don't need 
> locking I'm all ears.  IMHO some level of granular locking is 
> desirable as an option.
With a transaction representation that allows the target of the operation
to be named explicitly, offers an delete and add operation with an error
return if the target does not exist, and the ability to group 
sub-transactions
into an atomic operation, locking becomes optional for many management 
tasks.

Larry

--
Larry Menten               Lucent Technologies/Bell Laboratories
Phone: 908 582-4467        600 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ  07974 USA 


--
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/>