jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next Generation Persistence
Date Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:16:37 GMT

On 6/18/07, Thomas Mueller <thomas.tom.mueller@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am currently thinking about a radical solution (you can call it
> brainstorming): Store the index in a database. This would probably be
> slower than Lucene, a big disadvantage. Additionally, store data of
> all workspaces in the same database, using the same connection. Store
> versions in the same database. Use one database connection per
> session. Don't use any caching in Jackrabbit (only the database would
> cache data). Like this you don't run into problems with transaction
> rollbacks, you don't need to clean up the index from time to time. The
> Jackrabbit core would get much simpler. The database would not really
> need to be a SQL database, but it would need a bit more functionality
> than the current PersistenceManager.

Optimally I'd like to see Jackrabbit *be* that database; search
indexes, caching, transactions and all. The hard part is getting to
that state without a major revolution in Jackrabbit internals, so I
quite like your line of thinking in that it seems to offer a more
evolutionary path towards that goal. :-)


Jukka Zitting

View raw message