jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Padraic Hannon <...@wasabicowboy.com>
Subject Re: Jackrabbit, the database
Date Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:34:09 GMT
If Jackrabbit is to be the database then things such as transaction 
isolation levels, etc. need to be addressed. If Jackrabbit uses a 
database (ie derby) some of those can be off loaded to the db. However, 
in that case Jackrabbit becomes yet another, albeit extremely 
interesting, wrapper around an RDBMS. I think Jackrabbit is much more 
than an RDBMS wrapper and that developing the API is just a part of the 
overall system. IMO, moving away from derby and into a native storage 
system sounds like the right direction.

Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
> Late night ramblings...
> There's recently been a lot of talk about managing the database
> connections (and transactions) of the Jackrabbit persistence managers.
> It was even suggested that Jackrabbit be refactored so that each
> session would map to a separate database connection.
> Improvements in the way an underlying database is used are of course
> welcome, but in the big picture I don't like having the database being
> a driving factor in Jackrabbit design. The way I see it we should be
> moving further away from relational databases, towards a native
> hierarchical storage model.
> I don't want Jackrabbit using a database, I want Jackrabbit *being*
> the database!
> BR,
> Jukka Zitting

View raw message