From dev-return-56483-apmail-cocoon-dev-archive=cocoon.apache.org@cocoon.apache.org Mon Mar 01 21:28:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 7699 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2004 21:28:57 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2004 21:28:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 69310 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2004 21:28:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 69260 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2004 21:28:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 69246 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2004 21:28:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp02.myhosting.com) (168.144.68.182) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2004 21:28:41 -0000 Received: from lagrange ([81.225.126.237]) by smtp02.myhosting.com (Merak 7.1.0) with ASMTP id DXA74513 for ; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:28:46 -0500 From: "Leo Sutic" To: Subject: RE: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2 Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:28:45 +0100 Message-ID: <001001c3ffd4$2de09b30$0801a8c0@lagrange> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <4043A526.8090205@gmx.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:joerg.heinicke@gmx.de] > > But if someone provides a really useful 1.4 thing > like the mentioned "NIO-based implementation of the persistent store" > I'm for 1.4 of course. I'm more of a user than a developer of Cocoon, but I'd say that if someone can provide a reasonable argument that 1.4 would bring some useful things, I'd be for 1.4. I.e. no need to implement the NIO-based store, just some statement to the effect that it would bring performance benefits. (In this case, even with non-blocking NIO reads and writes, you'll still have to wait for the whole store.read() to finish, since the rest of the system isn't built around a non-blocking architecture. I therefore think that a NIO-based persistent store will not bring any significant performance boost without some serious re-architecting.) /LS