Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of jukka.zitting@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.250 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=tplCFrwD6oXH/CdEmqIsJcO+GcxQhpNB9EjXQ/LQ04lR6Mgh2BPOyE8xxSypieUg6GvLZtnHCicq00ykwXe55nxY+6zDk1v0RlDRJ7UXRAL4XE3trQDYfxqwdSRpR/3lG4lq9pxBxnEtaYUn0MYScICB+bwIpvJcF7g38/YzFiI=
Message-ID: <510143ac0704110352t5b674072ie3bb062a6df8329@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:52:42 +0300
From: "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitting@gmail.com>
To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next Generation Persistence
In-Reply-To: <510143ac0704011237n46548326p38d08b6b46c6fb50@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <510143ac0704011237n46548326p38d08b6b46c6fb50@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Thanks for comments and pointers to further information.

I think using a Subversion-like structure might make sense, though a
call like getNodeByUUID(...).getPath() could become quite expensive.
We probably should prioritize the performance requirements of
different operations to help guide the design.

Another issue that came up is whether and how such a persistence model
would work with the SPI. I had considered the SPI as the primary
interface to use when prototyping/implementing this persistence
proposal, but it seems that the handling of the transient space as a
"draft revision" doesn't resonate well with the SPI model of keeping
the transient space on the client side. Any ideas on how to best
resolve this?

BR,

Jukka Zitting