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.

regards,
david

.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
>

Mime
View raw message