From our point of view the available on the world market software tools are underlain by the wrong concept of control mechanism.
To be more exact – it is not oriented on corporative networks, is not scalable, works acceptable only in small networks. To define more precisely where’s the inborn vice of standard means, consider further on two approaches to organize operations for network directory control.
Clear that with a rising number of control objects the second approach becomes more attractive and advantageous. And practice also shows that processes of real business give birth to requests stream that is more adequately expressed by the second approach.
As an object of impact a separate object of a network directory is considered.
Convenience of this variant follows from its simplicity – clear that it’s easier to define/specify impact operation for one distinct object than for two and more.
- Object of impact is a set of directory objects.
In this case administrator defines a set of objects (users) for which changes are needed, then describes operation - which property to change and how. And lastly – executes operation, exactly one independently of the number of users.
We can present dozens examples, but their essence in the context being discussed is one and the same. Therefore consider the simplest sample. Suppose the necessity emerged to set a flag “User cannot change password” for some specified set of users. Under the first approach one have to carry out this operation for the first user, the second one and so forth – for all users. We have undoubted worsening of situation with network enlargement, i.e. – poor scaling.
As a matter of fact implementation of the LTC-approach implies the “exchange of coordinate system”. The standard tools explicitly or implicitly advise to choose an object and to deal then with all its properties. LTC, on the opposite, orients to select property (one or several) that is driven by the current task, and process these properties right away for entire subset of directory objects.