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: Jackrabbit, the database
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:02:59 GMT

On 8/20/07, Thomas Mueller <thomas.tom.mueller@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.

Agreed, that's my understanding as well.

I don't mind things like the current database persistence managers (as
long as the persistence interface doesn't require a database), but I
strongly feel that suggestions about pushing relational semantics or
other similar database concepts higher up in the Jackrabbit
architecture would be taking us to the wrong direction.

Even though existing relational databases do provide a solution to
many of the currently missing or partially implemented pieces in
Jackrabbit (backup, clustering, etc., most notably a huge user and
administrator base), a relational database will never be an optimal
storage for the hierarchical content model in JCR.

Essentially, in 5-10 years when we hopefully will start seriously
optimizing for performance and scalability, I don't want us in a
situation where we need to change the whole underlying architecture to
reach real performance gains.


Jukka Zitting

View raw message