jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Müller <thomas.muel...@day.com>
Subject Re: [jr3] MicroKernel prototype
Date Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:42:40 GMT
Hi,

> i doubt that the results of this comparison is any way significant.

It was not supposed to be a fair comparison :-) Of course the
prototype doesn't implement all features. For example path are parsed
in a very simplistic way. I don't think the end result will be as fast
as the prototype. Still, I do hope that the missing features will not
slow down the code significantly if they are not used. And if they are
used, the penalty shouldn't be too high.

What is significant is: the prototype is not slower than the "full"
Jackrabbit, even without the CachingHierarchyManager. For me that's
relatively important because it would simplify the architecture. More
tests are required to check if the current architecture works well
even if there are millions of nodes and many concurrent sessions. And
it's important to add more features of course.

I'm wondering what is the *most* problematic features to verify the
architecture:

- security
- orderable child nodes
- same name siblings
- locking
- transactions
- clustering
- observation
- workspaces
- node types
- large number of child nodes
- search
- correct path parsing and lookup
- multiple sessions

> cut some features to gian performance improvement.

I'm not sure. What features could be cut?

Regards,
Thomas

Mime
View raw message