jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcel Reutegger <marcel.reuteg...@gmx.net>
Subject Re: improving the scalability in searching
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:43:59 GMT
Christoph Kiehl wrote:
> Marcel Reutegger wrote:
>> 1) New QueryHandler class
>> 2) Introduce parameter in configuration
>> 3) Auto-detect in SearchIndex
>> I prefer 1) because it makes it explicit. I have reservations 
>> regarding 3) because it introduces some magic. I don't like 2) because 
>> we probably cannot come up with a sensible name ;)
> I'm a bit indifferent about 1) because I think the change is not 
> fundamentally enough to justify a new QueryHandler class. Do you have 
> any other plans with the new QueryHandler implementation? If I were to 
> implement a SQL based QueryHandler solution I would create a new 
> QueryHandler implementation, but not for a small change like that.

The new query handler for JSR 283 will probably require a new class because of 
new requirements. however I'm not 100% sure about that. It might be possible to 
use the existing index even with the new JSR-SQL2.

> Why 
> don't you like my suggestion to replace the old behaviour using the 
> strategy pattern? Just because you have to specify or auto-detect which 
> strategy to use? Or is there any other reason?

no, it's just because of the magic we would add. But that doesn't mean that I 
can't live with it.

> I don't like 2) as well because I prefer 3) ;). I would like to reduce 
> the number of choices for the user (see i.e. 
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html). The system should 
> just work optimally by itself. Which problem do you see in not 
> explicitly stating in the configuration which index format is used? The 
> only reason I could come up with is for people not knowing which format 
> they use. But I would just log a warning if the index is in the old 
> format and that query performance will improve if they rebuild their 
> indexes.
> I don't want to be academically, I just want the best solution for the 
> user. I wouldn't object if you decide to go for 1).

same here for option 3 ;) and btw, in jackrabbit there's always the team who 
decides what gets implemented and how. that's why we have this discussion here....

ok, I'm at a point where I think we should implement 3). I don't have 
fundamental opposition against it and you think it is a good choice. That should 
be sufficient ;)


View raw message