On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <email@example.com>
Sure. let me explain why I did that move, and why it's not critical.
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
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.
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.