On 2/3/12 10:51 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> This is a really bold move here Emmanuel. The txn branch is not even alpha
> and a serious change that will effect the server. I thought this was
> something we would slowly start to transition into the main branch of
> development.
>
> I don't know if it should require a vote but maybe we should talk about
> this a little bit no?
>
> Point to the modified version of JDBM.

Sure. let me explain why I did that move, and why it's not critical.

Having a MVCC backend could allow us to solve the problem we have with 
concurrent modifications and searches. We don't necessarily need to have 
the full in-memory MVCC Selcuk is working on in its branch in order to 
benefit from part of what he already have done : if we protect the 
modifications in the jdbm-partition against concurrent access to the 
backend, then searches and modifications could probably safely be 
executed concurrently.

I need to test this part, and I don't want to do that in a branch, 
because it's too much a pain to merge it back while we are fixing many 
other issues in the server.

Hopefully, this move is just impacting three poms and reverting back to 
jdbm is just a matter to point back to the previous version : just a breeze.

I should have told the list about this change before doing it, my bad. 
Sadly, I made a mistake and had to commit the modifications in the poms 
because I broke the trunk this morning with a partial commit. This is 
why we now point to jdbm2. This can easily be fixed, and we can safely 
revert to jdbm.

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com