Authoritativeness is determined by specific naming services. For example, in a naming service that supports replication using a master/slave model, the source of authoritative information would come
from the master server. In some naming systems, bypassing the naming service cache may reach servers which provide the most authoritative information. The availability of an authoritative context might
be lower due to the lower number of servers offering this service. For the same reason, it might also provide poorer performance than contexts that need not be authoritative.
Applications set authoritative to 0 for typical day-to-day operations. Applications only set authoritative to a non-zero value
when they require access to the most authoritative information, possibly at the expense of lower availability and/or poorer performance.
It is implementation-dependent whether authoritativeness is transferred from one context to the next as composite name resolution proceeds. Getting an authoritative context handle to the Initial Context
means that operations on bindings in the Initial Context are processed using the most authoritative information. Contexts referenced implicitly through an authoritative Initial Context (for example, through
the use of composite names) may not necessarily themselves be authoritative.
|