Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 68371 invoked from network); 25 May 2010 07:55:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 25 May 2010 07:55:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 67456 invoked by uid 500); 25 May 2010 07:55:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 67311 invoked by uid 500); 25 May 2010 07:55:38 -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 67303 invoked by uid 99); 25 May 2010 07:55:37 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 May 2010 07:55:37 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of tmueller@day.com designates 207.126.148.96 as permitted sender) Received: from [207.126.148.96] (HELO eu3sys201amo012.postini.com) (207.126.148.96) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 25 May 2010 07:55:29 +0000 Received: from source ([72.14.220.157]) by eu3sys201aob106.postini.com ([207.126.154.11]) with SMTP ID DSNKS/uCWi81klCDAUXoxDynyDmBceVWFIcp@postini.com; Tue, 25 May 2010 00:55:09 PDT Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so1688120fgb.13 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 00:55:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.239.135.2 with SMTP id b2mr587012hbb.206.1274774105808; Tue, 25 May 2010 00:55:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.239.156.19 with HTTP; Tue, 25 May 2010 00:55:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4BECECBE.2020504@day.com> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 09:55:05 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [jr3] Jackrabbit 3 in trunk From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thomas_M=FCller?= To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, > objectives of the > jr3 project is to deliver better performance than jr2 on scalability, > concurrency, latency, etc., it would be helpful to have an automated stress > test framework That's true. There are already a few such test cases, but more are required. Patches are welcome of course :-) However I fear most people will ignore this prototype unless it is actually usable. That's why I think adding features is important as well. This doesn't mean the prototype needs to pass the TCK, but at least the basic operations should work as expected. > It's easier to fix deep architectural issues before a bunch of code has been > written around the architecture, so the priority should be to have code that > breaks the architecture (highlighting the weak points) before having code > that uses the architecture (highlighting the strong points). In other words, the architecture needs to be correct before adding features. That's true. Probably "clustering" should be added before "versioning", because clustering has a higher impact on the architecture. Regards, Thomas