Did I have used a word that I shouldn't...

You decide?

Heuchler -- eine Person, die Glauben und Meinungen erklärt, daß er nic
+ht hält
[download]

FWIW: I'm serious. For instance: The distributed transaction idea is from a filesystem that I hope to implement someday. I believe it would be safe as logged and faster than cached. The RFC677 should someday replace DNS. No central point of failure that way. Security is a bitch though.

I agree that the mechanism is probably ideal for databases where the vast majority of accesses are readonly references such as DNS and to a lesser extent filesystems. With these, there are relatively few modifying updates, compared to readonly references and/or overwrites with new (unrelated) values. Modifications have to be authorised, which reduces the overall impact of the locking by combining it with the authorisation mechanism. There is also an inherent performance hit related to network communications or diskIO that means that high performance (in the clock cycles sense) is not a criteria.

I am dubious about it's applicability in the areana of shared variable accesses where (typically) 1/3rd or 1/2 of all accesses are modifications to the current value, accessability is authorisation to modify, and high performance is critical.