Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 75019 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2010 13:18:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2010 13:18:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 35876 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2010 13:18:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 35811 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2010 13:18:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 35803 invoked by uid 99); 18 Feb 2010 13:18:16 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:18:16 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jukka.zitting@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.211 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.218.211] (HELO mail-bw0-f211.google.com) (209.85.218.211) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:18:08 +0000 Received: by bwz3 with SMTP id 3so104808bwz.9 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:17:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+G6pe7jkoBVu/+ryEQetTgHVRA2Aa1z3oxB/kkhA97I=; b=d1NjfEj4TmxDCkWU1qntZG1fzNIUfgwlmGZuxsVTiP2Zzo2VsJey0Mr67b+m1ngpwq RpfDEaoZkhd8DhUKzBUTBhDEWvG2YD5oSYsUPTqCC9X5VhzH0h45YXoaIL4GQa0gme1w 82yWimNs7gnJ+OkGljwG3WvvGqlW2nGLwktio= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=TNofkusub2ipcQnw3Elnu0bNkuhZO62MwYYHTMm1XEOEcKaCJCHNTD3cIfC59ji2dj na5LG8KVnGaMZ33lA3SpYmmUSozaQFCQ53wH51oHRKCu0YtOt54d/jWhZrIGA93l3DUe mV3tklM3fWabFg0hpH5BW0E9nT4YdGRtSV/xA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.34.195 with SMTP id m3mr1861304bkd.190.1266499067788; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:17:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <91f3b2651002180511t2ba97f83t8b172588ec80bb41@mail.gmail.com> References: <510143ac1002170722g76806f23he522cd7fc05a2499@mail.gmail.com> <697f8381002170751u6c090ae3kf413238a998ac9e6@mail.gmail.com> <91f3b2651002172339m1ce8d8ect81614644832eaa34@mail.gmail.com> <91f3b2651002180511t2ba97f83t8b172588ec80bb41@mail.gmail.com> From: Jukka Zitting Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:17:27 +0100 Message-ID: <510143ac1002180517x25b10b2bo7ec912e7b32f8819@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [jr3] Search index in content To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Thomas M=FCller w= rote: > In any case, keeping the index and the persistence in the > same storage simplifies transactional persistence a lot. Agreed. I believe we can do this equally well (if not better) with Lucene as with any homegrown indexing mechanism. > A microkernel that relies on Apache Lucene even for simple > property/value indexes is not an option in my view. Agreed. I wouldn't put search features in the microkernel. BR, Jukka Zitting