jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From krisNog <kris.glo...@bluenog.com>
Subject Re: RMI vs. JNDI
Date Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:57:29 GMT

Thanks for your help. That has helped to clear things up for me. What I
really need to find out is what sort of latency there is when using RMI to
make calls to the JCR API.

Thanks again,
Kris



Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
> 
> Don't know about performance differences between of a pure RMI lookup
> vs. a JNDI lookup (although JNDI is recommended, because it is the
> standard in J2EE systems), but anyway it will only affect the *lookup*
> of the Repository interface. Once you have done that in your startup
> code, you'll never need to do a lookup again in your application. If
> you do remoting, you will be using RMI starting from there, for
> getting Sessions and doing all the JCR API calls.
> 
> Regards,
> Alex
> 
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:58 PM, krisNog <kris.glover@bluenog.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. I understand the fundamental difference between the
>> two but I'm more concerned with performance. If you look at the
>> jackrabbit-webapp the local.jsp/remote.jsp describe how performance is
>> "much
>> better" using a local lookup such as within container context or through
>> local JNDI where-as using RMI to look up is recommended as a last resort.
>> My
>> question is what does "significantly better" mean? I understand that RMI
>> has
>> capabilities that JNDI alone does not but what penalty would I incur if I
>> chose to use RMI even if I didn't absolutely require the remoting
>> capability. Keeping in mind that everything I will be accessing will be
>> from
>> within the context of web-containers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> you misunderstand JNDI. It is just a directory service for looking up
>>> objects, not a remoting protocol. RMI however is both a remoting for
>>> Java (what you mean) and offers a simple way to address these remote
>>> objects. JNDI is supposed to be a superior directory API, eg. it can
>>> also address underlying RMI objects among other things. But only RMI
>>> is a remoting interface which is available in Jackrabbit. Where did
>>> you read about a performance difference?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:08 AM, krisNog <kris.glover@bluenog.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have a question regarding best practices. According to the Jackrabbit
>>>> documentation JNDI is preferred over RMI for performance reasons.
>>>> However,
>>>> I've noticed many Jackrabbit users still opt to use RMI. I understand
>>>> RMI
>>>> can be used in remote situations where JNDI cannot be used but other
>>>> then
>>>> that what is the tradeoff if any between RMI and JNDI? Historically, I
>>>> understand RMI is slower then JNDI but does that paradigm still stand
>>>> or
>>>> has
>>>> RMI performance increased enough to be comparable to JNDI? specifically
>>>> when
>>>> dealing with large Jackrabbit repositories?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any insight
>>>>
>>>> Kris
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/RMI-vs.-JNDI-tp17876722p17876722.html
>>>> Sent from the Jackrabbit - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alexander Klimetschek
>>> alexander.klimetschek@day.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/RMI-vs.-JNDI-tp17876722p17891000.html
>> Sent from the Jackrabbit - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alexander Klimetschek
> alexander.klimetschek@day.com
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/RMI-vs.-JNDI-tp17876722p17898756.html
Sent from the Jackrabbit - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message