My point was simply that the transaction spec described in the draft should beLarry Menten wrote: 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.I want to make sure I understand your point. Are you saying that we need to provide locking however it is up to the management station to choose if it wants to use the locking?
-- Larry Menten Lucent Technologies/Bell Laboratories Phone: 908 582-4467 600 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ 07974 USA