jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Nuescheler" <da...@day.com>
Subject Re: Jackrabbit, the database
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:42:51 GMT
hi all,

i can appreciate both positions, looking at jackrabbit as the datastore
or looking at jackrabbit as running on top of a datastore (rdbms).

personally, i don't believe that the latter perception will go away for
quite a while,  so i think jackrabbit should support both views.

in my experience, i have seen really three different
views so far:

A: i want to store the entire repository in a relational
database. this allows me to use hot backup and clustering
of the database.

B: i want to store all the "meta information" in the database
but i also have those really large blobs (movies) that i don't
trust the database with.

C: i want it to be fast & reliable and easy to deploy
and run in production.

(does someone on the list not fall into these three options?)

i think with the global datastore and the pm architecture jackrabbit
is very flexible to offer options for all three views of the world.
i think a good next step would be to explicitly
support/document these three well defined persistence models
and make it really easy for people to just pick and choose
their favorite approach and run with an ootb config.


.ps: of course i have a personal preference but i think my preference
is well-known ;)

On 8/20/07, Thomas Mueller <thomas.tom.mueller@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> > management won't.
> > political reasons.
> > won't move to Jackrabbit *if* Jackrabbit cannot store it in oracle.
> I agree. My guess is about 50% of larger organizations want a
> databases as the backend, even if databases are slower. So about 50%
> don't really care.
> Thomas

View raw message